| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Christchurch 4 |
| Determination date | 13 January 2014 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | J Lil : J Campbell, D Eggers, P Campbell (in person) |
| Parties | Hixon (Labour Inspector) v Campbell and Ors |
| Other Parties | Eggers, Campbell |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Matter removed to Employment Court |
| Abstract | Applicant (Mr Hixon (Labour Inspector)) sought removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on grounds important question of law likely to arise and in all circumstances matter should be determined by EC. Applicant claimed company (“AHV”) (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Sector) made unlawful deductions from workers’ wages and sought arrears of wages. AHV placed in liquidation. First and second respondents directors of AHV. Applicant claimed third respondent manager / administrator of HRV responsible for payroll. Section 11 Wages Protection Act 1983 (“WPA”) allowed worker to recover any unlawful deduction from wages from worker’s employer. Section 2 WPA provided “employer” included manager, foreman, clerk, agent or other person engaged by worker’s employer in hiring, employment, or supervision of service or work of worker. Applicant claimed respondents “employers” for purposes of WPA and personally liable for deductions from workers’ wages. Applicant claimed whether definition of “employer” in section 2 WPA entitled workers to pursue directors and managers of employer personally important question of law.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Necessary to focus inquiry into obligations of manager of employer company under WPA on circumstances where liability would shift from employer company to individual directors and managers. Whether intervening liquidation of AHV entitled applicant to proceed against directors and payroll administrator of AHV of crucial importance in deciding matter. Question of law important and likely to arise other than incidentally given potential effect upon other directors and employees of companies placed into liquidation. In all circumstances matter should be determined by EC. Matter removed to EC. |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1993 s248(1)(c);ERA s178;ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(c);ERA s178(2)(d);ERA s224;Wages Protection Act 1983;Wages Protection Act 1983 s2;Wages Protection Act 1983 s11 |
| Cases Cited | Hanlon v International Educational Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ 1;Mehta v Elliott (Labour Inspector) [2003] 1 ERNZ 451 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Christchurch_4.pdf [pdf 167 KB] |