| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 98 |
| Hearing date | 14 Mar 2014 |
| Determination date | 14 March 2014 |
| Member | T G Tetitaha |
| Representation | J Seamn (in person) ; Respondent in person |
| Parties | Seaman v Simply Security Ltd |
| Summary | ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant sought arrears of wages - Deduction from applicant's wages for first aid training costs - Applicant signed casual employment agreement (EA") - Applicant subsequently offered permanent position but did not sign new EA as did not agree with terms - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's failure to pay wages within reasonable time - PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty for respondent's breach of good faith - COUNTERCLAIM - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Respondent sought damages for applicant's failure to give reasonable notice - Security guard" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;ARREARS OF WAGES: Applicant worked fulltime hours and already permanent employee when offered new EA. Fact respondent sought to impose new EA on applicant did not displace casual EA. Casual EA continued to apply to extent terms of casual EA consistent with permanent employment. Respondent could not rely on new EA to make deduction from applicant's wages for training costs. Applicant accepted deduction at time because believed respondent entitled to make deduction. Respondent to pay applicant $273 arrears of wages.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Applicant's EA indicated could not expect to be paid on week to week basis. Lack of clarity around legal arrangements between parties. Both parties honestly believed respondent able to make deductions at time. No unjustified disadvantage.;PENALTY: No evidence respondent's failure deliberate, serious and sustained or intended to undermine individual EA. No penalty.;COUNTERCLAIM - BREACH OF CONTRACT: Applicant required to give only one week's notice under casual EA. Applicant's lack of notice did not cause respondent's losses. No breach of contract. |
| Result | Application granted (arrears of wages) ; Arrears of wages ($273) ; Applications dismissed (unjustified disadvantage)(penalty)(counterclaim - breach of contract) ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s4A;ERA s4A(a);ERA s4A(b);ERA s131;Wages Protection Act 1983;Wages Protection Act 1983 s5 |
| Cases Cited | Tucker Wool Processors Ltd v Harrison [1999] 1 ERNZ 894 ; [1999] 3 NZLR 576 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_98.pdf [pdf 106 KB] |