| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Christchurch 32 |
| Hearing date | 22 Oct 2013;23 Dec 2013 |
| Determination date | 24 February 2014 |
| Member | C Hickey |
| Representation | L Norton ; F Pulukamu |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | Norton, Labour Inspector v T P Manu Ltd |
| Summary | PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s failure to provide written employment agreements and failure to comply with improvement notice – Failure to provide time sheets and wage records – Whether improvement notice served correctly |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;PENALTY: Respondent’s failure to supply written employment agreements to three employees by middle of first day of work season not breach of Employment Relations Act 2000 so egregious penalty should be ordered. Requirement for improvement notice to be given to employer should be interpreted to allow adequate service on employer not natural person. Sufficient to serve company at address for service or registered office listed at relevant time with Companies Office. Reasonable for applicant to expect respondent would make arrangements to ensure any mail forwarded to correct address if address for service or registered address of company on companies register not yet updated. Reasonable to expect respondent’s managing director (“P”) to make arrangements for mail to be dealt with when out of country. Respondent served with improvement notice adequately in time to comply with notice. P’s periods out of New Zealand did not coincide with period when respondent required to comply with improvement notice. P’s evidence about overseas absences incorrect and no other reasons advanced for respondent’s failure to comply with improvement notice. Respondent’s actions deliberate rather than inadvertent. $3,000 penalty appropriate for failure to comply with improvement notice. |
| Result | Application granted ; Penalty ($3,000)(payable to Crown) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Penalty |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1993 s15;Companies Act 1993 s86;Companies Act 1993 s192;Companies Act 1993 s387;Companies Act 1993 s387(1)(a);Companies Act 1993 s387(1)(b);Companies Act 1993 s387(1)(c);Companies Act 1993 s387(1)(e);Companies Act 1993 s388;Companies Act 1993 s388(1)(b);Companies Act 1993 s388(1)(c);ERA;ERA s63A(2);ERA s63A(3);ERA s64(1);ERA s65;ERA s65(1)(a);ERA s65(4);ERA s65;ERA s135(2)(b);ERA s136;ERA s223A;ERA s223D;ERA s223D(4);ERA s223D(4)(a);ERA s223E;ERA s223F |
| Cases Cited | Spence (Labour Inspector) v Oakridge Masonry Ltd [2012] NZERA Auckland 414 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Christchurch_32.pdf [pdf 217 KB] |