| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 369 |
| Hearing date | 11 Oct 2012 |
| Determination date | 16 October 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | S Fonua ; M Kyne |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Bali v SRG Holdings Ltd t/a Supervalue and Anor |
| Other Parties | NZ Liquor Merchants Ltd t/a Super Liquor |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance with applicant and first respondent’s settlement agreement (“SA”) – SA clause stated second respondent would offer applicant employment – Authority found applicant agreed did not have work visa on particular date therefore could not commence employment – Found applicant could not comply with SA clause and in accordance with SA applicant’s employment offer lapsed – Respondents had previously complied with applicable SA clauses - Application dismissed - COUNTER CLAIM - COSTS – Less than one day investigation meeting - Found respondents entitled to contribution towards costs – Applicant to pay respondents $500 contribution towards costs |
| Abstract | Applicant sought compliance with applicant and first respondent’s (“SRG”) settlement agreement (“SA”). Applicant claimed SRG did not comply with SA clauses that second respondent (“NZLM”) would offer applicant employment with NZLM and SRG would provide applicant with reference and letter for immigration purposes. Director of SRG and NZLM (“G”) claimed gave applicant employment offer, reference and letter in accordance with SA. Applicant claimed terms of employment offer did not comply with SA. Authority previously determined respondent had complied with SA relating to employment offer. Applicant accepted NZLM’s employment offer and claimed was told by G’s representative employment offer conditional upon applicant obtaining work visa. Applicant claimed no condition applicant obtain work visa in SA and appealed Authority’s previous determination to Employment Court (“EC”). EC issued minute that applicant needed to first apply to Authority again for compliance order and Authority would need to consider whether NZLM could be joined as party for enforcement purposes. SRG and NZLM sought contribution towards costs.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;COMPLIANCE ORDER: G agreed in capacity as director of SRG and NZLM that NZLM would offer applicant employment. NZLM not identified as party to SA but G had authority to represent that NZLM would offer applicant employment. NZLM had also complied with SA. SA clause that stated if applicant “not able to commence work” on particular date should be read to mean if applicant “not able to accept work.” Authority noted applicant foreign national and needed valid work visa or right to work in New Zealand. Applicant agreed did not have work visa on particular date therefore could not commence employment. Applicant could not comply with SA clause and in accordance with SA applicant’s employment offer lapsed. SRG and NZLM had previously complied with applicable SA clauses. Application dismissed.;COUNTERCLAIM - COSTS: Investigation meeting took less than one day. SRG and NZLM entitled to contribution towards costs. Applicant to pay SRG and NZLM $500 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs in favour of respondent ($500) ; |
| Main Category | Compliance Order |
| Statutes | ERA s148;ERA s149;ERA s149(3)(a);ERA Second Schedule cl15;Immigration Act 2009 |
| Cases Cited | Bali v SRG Holdings Ltd t/a Supervalue [2012] NZERA Auckland 195 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_369.pdf [pdf 165 KB] |