| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Auckland 77 |
| Hearing date | 7 Nov 2014 |
| Determination date | 16 March 2015 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | T Parikshit ; V Hodgson, H Quinlan |
| Parties | Parikshit v James Richardson (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Determination of preliminary issue - Whether applicant's employment agreement (EA") contained valid 90 day trial period provision - Whether applicant given reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice about intended agreement - 3IC" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: E-mail containing EA sent to applicant but Authority not satisfied applicant received e-mail and attachments. If applicant did not see e-mail and attachments, applicant had only half hour to consider and accept EA. Onus not on applicant to ask for more time to consider agreement. Applicant knew would not be able to attend induction session starting 30 minutes later if did not sign EA and respondent effectively insisted on immediate execution of agreement. Even if applicant received e-mail and attachments, applicant only had single working day to seek, receive and consider advice. Applicant not provided with reasonable opportunity to seek, get and consider independent advice about intended EA. Respondent unable to rely on 90 trial period provision. |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s63A(2)(c);ERA s67A;ERA s67B;ERA s67B(3);ERA s160(1)(c);ERA s174 |
| Cases Cited | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 152, [2011] ERNZ 445;Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Auckland_77.pdf [pdf 304 KB] |