| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 416 |
| Determination date | 23 November 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | C Torrens (in person) ; A Bean |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Torrens v Bruce & Diana Torrens Partnership |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER – ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant sought compliance with parties’ settlement agreement – Authority found applicant incorrectly brought claim as application for compliance order but Authority had jurisdiction to consider applicant’s claim for arrears of wages – Found no evidence applicant’s employment terminated apart from letter from lawyer acting for one of respondent’s partners – Found letter did not terminate applicant’s employment in accordance with parties’ employment agreement – Found applicant entitled to payment of wages for specified period - Respondent to pay applicant $811 arrears of wages - Operations Assistant |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as operations assistant. Applicant sought compliance with parties’ settlement agreement (SA"). Clause of SA confirmed neither party had agreed to forgo their minimum entitlements. Applicant claimed had continued to work for respondent and therefore entitled to wages at minimum rate for work carried out since date of SA. Respondent partner ("D") denied any wages outstanding and claimed respondent ceased to trade after date of SA. Applicant claimed during employment worked solely under direction of one of respondent’s partners (“B”). D claimed respondent ceased to trade after partners’ settlement of relationship property issues. D claimed applicant employed by B for relevant period. Applicant accepted had been partial settlement of relationship property dispute but claimed respondent continued to generate income and applicant continued to carry out duties for respondent in accordance with B’s instructions. B gave evidence of work applicant performed relating to respondent after relationship property settlement.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;COMPLIANCE ORDER – ARREARS OF WAGES: Authority found applicant incorrectly brought claim as application for compliance order but Authority had jurisdiction to consider applicant’s claim for arrears of wages. Whether D had been consulted about applicant’s employment did not negate validity of employment agreement (“EA”) between parties. D had signed SA. D acceded to employment of applicant. No evidence applicant’s employment terminated apart from letter from D’s lawyer. Letter did not terminate applicant’s employment in accordance with EA’s four week notice period. Work carried out by applicant relating to respondent was in accordance with applicant’s employment by respondent. Applicant entitled to payment of wages. Respondent to pay applicant $811 arrears of wages." |
| Result | Application granted ; Compliance ordered; Arrears of wages ($811.28) ; Costs reserved ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.50)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Statutes | ERA s149;ERA s160(3);Wages Protection Act 1983 s4 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_416.pdf [pdf 159 KB] |