| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 267 |
| Hearing date | 4 Dec 2012 |
| Determination date | 05 December 2012 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | F Kane (in person) ; W Cuff |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Kane v Poolquip Ltd |
| Summary | ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant sought arrears of wages – Authority found respondent’s director (“W”) made oral promise applicant would receive bonus even though applicant not going to work until end of quarter in question – Found W had actual authority to bind respondent – Found no consideration given for W’s promise as no conditions attached to promise, applicant did not do anything in return for promise and applicant did not continue to work beyond date notice due to expire – Found no contractual variation – No arrears of wages |
| Abstract | Applicant sought arrears of wages. Respondent had scheme of bonus payments to staff if specified target met and staff member employed throughout quarter to which bonus related. Applicant gave notice of resignation. Parties disputed who requested applicant finish work four days early. Applicant not entitled to bonus payment for current quarter as applicant’s notice expired during quarter but claimed received oral promise from respondent’s director (“W”) applicant would be paid bonus nonetheless. Applicant claimed promise made on W’s own initiative and W asked for applicant’s home address to post cheque. Applicant’s evidence W did not attach any conditions to applicant receiving bonus. W claimed could not recall speaking to applicant about bonus after applicant tendered resignation. Applicant returned to help respondent after end of employment. Respondent refused to pay bonus.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;ARREARS OF WAGES: W made oral promise applicant would receive bonus even though applicant not going to work until end of quarter in question. W director of respondent and applicant’s manager. W had actual authority to bind respondent. Sufficient doubt about previous Court of Appeal judgment to set case to one side and proceed on basis variation to contractual term required some form of legal consideration to be binding. No consideration given for W’s promise as no conditions attached to promise, applicant did not do anything in return for promise and applicant did not continue to work beyond date notice due to expire. While applicant’s alleged agreement to finish work four days early and agreement to help at respondent after employment terminated could constitute consideration, applicant’s evidence specific no conditions attached to W’s promise and applicant’s actions not consideration for promise. W’s promise made in recognition of past service by applicant during quarter in question and past service not consideration for promise to pay applicant’s bonus. No contractual variation. No arrears of wages. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Cases Cited | Alliance Freezing Co (Southland) Ltd v New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering etc Industrial Union of Workers (1989) ERNZ Sel Cas 575 ; [1990] 1 NZLR 533;Antons Trawling Co Ltd v Smith [2003] 2 NZLR 23;United Food Workers v Talley [1992] 3 ERNZ 423;Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_267.pdf [pdf 123 KB] |