| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 166 |
| Hearing date | 14 May 2012 |
| Determination date | 16 May 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | M Moncur ; V Ceponis, no appearance |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Chen v New Home Group Ltd & Anor |
| Other Parties | Gong |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether employee or independent contractor – Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay – Unclear which respondent engaged applicant – Respondents claimed applicant independent contractor – Applicant engaged on specified building project – Applicant claimed offered second respondent (“G”) Inland Revenue Department (“IRD”) number but told unnecessary – Authority found no employment agreement (“EA”) and G declined applicant’s IRD number – Found respondents believed applicant independent contractor – Found respondents exercised very limited control over applicant and did not provide applicant with tools or uniform – Found applicant not integrated into respondents’ businesses as applicant only engaged at one worksite – Found lack of EA, respondents’ failure to contact IRD and respondents’ trusting applicant to provide number of hours worked tended to suggest applicant independent contractor – Found contractors very common in building industry – Found applicant independent contractor – No jurisdiction – Authority suggested likely applicant’s contractual relationship with G – Tiler |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s6;ERA s6(2);ERA s6(3) |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 372; [2005] 3 NZLR 721;Clark v Northland Hunt Inc (2006) 4 NZELR 23 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_166.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |