Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2016] NZERA Auckland 18
Hearing date 12-Nov-15
Determination date 15 January 2016
Member Robin Arthur
Representation G Tanner ; R France
Location Auckland
Parties Harlow v Western Property Management Ltd and Anor
Other Parties Teague
Summary JURISDICTION – Whether applicant employee or independent contractor – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;JURISDICTION: No written employment agreement. Applicant paid in cash and did not provide invoices. Applicant usually worked normal office hours. Applicant had key for office and used first respondent’s name in correspondence. Applicant’s role could have been done by either employee or independent contractor. Control and integration test unclear. Applicant clearly knew and understood difference between being employee and contractor. Lack of evidence that contracting arrangement ever discussed. Applicant not in business on own account. Applicant employee.;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Evidence did not support applicant’s contention of joint employment by respondents. Applicant aware that first respondent ran business and that second respondent director. Applicant received wages from first respondent and worked under second respondent only in his capacity as director. Applicant’s statement to police indicated belief that first respondent employer. Applicant employed by first respondent. Parties directed to mediation.
Result Applications granted ; Costs reserved
Main Category Jurisdiction
Statutes ERA s6;ERA s6(3);ERA s159;ERA s174E
Cases Cited Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd (No 2) [2005] NZSC 34, [2005] 3 NZLR 721;Hutton v Provencocadmus Ltd (in rec) [2012] NZEmpC 207, [2012] ERNZ 566;Mehta v Elliott [2003] 1 ERNZ 451 (EmpC);Orakei Group (2007) Ltd v Doherty [2008] ERNZ 345 (EmpC);Square 1 Service Group Ltd v Butler [1994] 1 ERNZ 667 (EmpC)
Number of Pages 13
PDF File Link: 2016_NZERA_Auckland_18.pdf [pdf 298 KB]