| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Wellington 86 |
| Hearing date | 22 - 23 May 2013 |
| Determination date | 17 July 2013 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | V Eades ; C Bronnimann, S Millar, K Parnell, L McKenzie (in person) |
| Location | Whanganui |
| Parties | Weck-Clunie v Bronnimann and Ors |
| Other Parties | Millar, Parnell, McKenzie, Weck-Clunie |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether applicant employee – Identity of employer – Respondents involved in running and managing unincorporated non-profit organisation (“SANDS”) – Employment agreement signed by applicant and first respondent – Whether signing of agreement constituted committee meeting – Applicant, first and second respondent present when employment agreement signed – First respondent did not obtain approval of second to fourth respondents to sign on behalf of SANDS as employer – First respondent requested second respondent register SANDS as employer with Inland Revenue Department – Voluntary organisation – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by removal of tools of work, variation of duties and breakdown in communication – Applicant failed to return to workplace – ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant sought arrears of wages – Whether first respondent received applicant’s time sheets – Applicant received advance on wages, reimbursement of fee and Christmas bonus – Whether payment of wages subject to funding – Events and programmes coordinator |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;JURISDICTION – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant believed first respondent had ostensible authority to sign employment agreement. Signing of agreement not meeting of committee. Minutes of SANDS did not provide approval or authority to employ applicant on behalf of SANDS. Unincorporated status of SANDS meant liability had to be personal. Applicant entitled to assume offer of employment genuine. First respondent decided how to split funding grants between first respondent and applicant. Registration of SANDS with IRD not enough to imply personal responsibility against second respondent. Applicant employee. Applicant employed by first respondent.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Understandable applicant believed was being replaced and disadvantaged but first respondent not sole cause of any alleged unjustified action. No attempt by first respondent to end employment. Unfair and unconscionable to put further burden on first respondent. No unjustified disadvantage.;ARREARS OF WAGES: Employment agreement failed to stipulate payment of applicant’s wages subject to funding. Questions about reliability of applicant’s claims. Applicant entitled to payment for hours allowed under employment agreement less money paid to applicant. First respondent to pay applicant $2,112 arrears of wages. Interest payable. |
| Result | Applications granted (jurisdiction)(practice and procedure)(arrears of wages) ; Arrears of wages ($2,112.35) ; Interest (5%) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Statutes | ERA s221(a) |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Wellington_86.pdf [pdf 179 KB] |