| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 117 |
| Hearing date | 22 Mar 2013 |
| Determination date | 08 April 2013 |
| Member | T G Tetitaha |
| Representation | C Eckard ; Northland Regional Transport Ltd (in person), Q Weatherup |
| Location | Whangarei |
| Parties | Tebbutt v Northland Regional Transport Ltd |
| Summary | ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay – Authority found respondent hired new employee to cover applicant’s work meaning applicant superfluous unless other work available – Found no logical reason for respondent to pay applicant holiday pay if work available – Found applicant never advised by respondent contract terminated or required to attend work by respondent – Found applicant made redundant and entitled to redundancy compensation under employment agreement - Respondent to pay applicant $3,920 arrears of wages and $313 arrears of holiday pay – Interest payable – COSTS – Half day investigation meeting – Applicant sought contribution towards costs - Respondent to pay applicant $1,750 contribution towards costs – Transport Operator |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as transport operator. Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay. Applicant sought contribution towards costs. Break down of applicant’s truck resulted in late delivery of goods to respondent’s client. Client suspended respondent’s contract due to poor performance. Client suspended applicant from site and made allegation of previous poor performance by applicant. Respondent and applicant agreed applicant to take week’s leave. Respondent claimed offered applicant further work but applicant non-committal. Applicant claimed no further work offered and agreed to continue taking leave as work shortage. Applicant claimed three weeks later called respondent to discuss pay and redundancy compensation owed. Respondent denied call took place. Respondent hired another driver in interim. Applicant requested redundancy compensation. Respondent claimed informed applicant no redundancy as work available. Applicant claimed respondent abusive and told applicant no money to pay.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY: Respondent’s client suspended applicant from site and applicant lost most of applicant’s work. Respondent hired another employee to cover applicant’s work meaning applicant superfluous unless other work available, and new employee’s employment terminated few months later due to insufficient work. No logical reason for respondent to pay applicant holiday pay if work available. Applicant never advised by respondent contract terminated or required to attend work by respondent. Applicant made redundant and entitled to redundancy compensation under employment agreement. Respondent to pay applicant $3,920 arrears of wages and $313 arrears of holiday pay. Interest payable.;COSTS: Half day investigation meeting. Respondent to pay applicant $1,750 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Arrears of wages ($3,920) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($313.62) ; Interest (5%) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,750) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Statutes | ERA s131;ERA s160(1)(a);ERA s160(1)(f);ERA Second Schedule cl10;ERA Second Schedule cl11;ERA Second Schedule cl15 |
| Cases Cited | G N Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington etc Caretakers etc IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843 ; [1991] 1 NZLR 151 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_117.pdf [pdf 104 KB] |