| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Auckland 357 |
| Determination date | 13 November 2015 |
| Member | James Crichton |
| Representation | P Lorigan (in person) ; R Towner, S Maxfield |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd and Ors |
| Other Parties | Infinity Automotive Ltd, Sime Darby Motor Group (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether grievance for unjustified disadvantage raised within 90 days – JURISDICTION – Whether applicant in employment relationship with second respondent - COUNTERCLAIM – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether accord and satisfaction |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE: No suggestion that applicant concerned with anything other than unjustified dismissal claim. No discussion of disadvantage claim. Grievance not raised within 90 days.;JURISDICTION: Contractor arrangement between applicant and second respondent renewed multiple times. Applicant entered into employment agreement with first respondent, no evidence second respondent party to agreement. Applicant carried out duties under first respondent. Applicant not employed by second respondent. No jurisdiction to hear claim against second respondent.;COUNTERCLAIM – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant raised genuine, informal dispute. Applicant made clear acceptance of gratuitous payment not accepted in full and final settlement. No meeting of minds between parties. No accord and satisfaction. Applicant to proceed with personal grievance claim. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Cases Cited | Graham v Crestline Pty Ltd [2006] ERNZ 848 (EmpC);Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517 (EmpC), (2006) 3 NZELR 293;Mehta v Elliott [2003] 1 ERNZ 451 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Auckland_357.pdf [pdf 254 KB] |