| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 243 |
| Hearing date | 25 Jun 2012 |
| Determination date | 18 July 2012 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | J Guthrie ; R Wimmers |
| Location | Gisborne |
| Parties | Taylor v Maria Wimmers Ltd and Ors |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Whether first respondent’s liability should be transferred to second and third respondents – Authority found applicant employed by first respondent only – Found no jurisdiction to transfer first respondent’s liability to second and third respondents – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by first respondent – Found more likely than not applicant resigned – No dismissal – Manager |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by first respondent as manager. Applicant claimed also employed by third respondent. Applicant claimed first respondent’s liability should be transferred to second and third respondents. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by first respondent. Applicant responsible for overseeing wedding function. Function did not go well. At debrief meeting applicant claimed told by first respondent applicant no longer needed. Respondents claimed applicant resigned. Applicant claimed third respondent offered applicant job and was applicant’s boss. Third respondent sole director and shareholder of first and second respondents. Applicant claimed first respondent’s liability should be transferred to second and third respondents as first respondent no longer operating and did not have any assets.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant paid by first respondent and applicant’s employment agreement named first respondent as employer. Business owned and operated by first respondent. Applicant employed by first respondent only. Authority unable to make finding of unjustified dismissal against person not applicant’s employer or former employer. No jurisdiction to transfer first respondent’s liability to second and third respondents.;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant told others of intention to leave first respondent prior to meeting. Applicant asking to return to first respondent to conduct proper handover and having coffee with other employees inconsistent with distress applicant claimed resulted from dismissal. More likely than not applicant resigned. No dismissal. |
| Result | Applications dismissed; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Harbour Workers Union v Auckland Harbour Board [1991] 2 ERNZ 200;Square 1 Service Group Ltd v Butler [1994] 1 ERNZ 667 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_243.pdf [pdf 160 KB] |