| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Christchurch 226 |
| Hearing date | 8-Nov-16 |
| Determination date | 21 December 2016 |
| Member | T MacKinnon |
| Representation | S Aitken ; A Ronald |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Bristowe v Champagne Homes Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether applicant employee or independent contractor – Hammer hand |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –JURISDICTION: No common intention over applicant’s employment status. Parties did not discuss taxes, leave or working conditions. Applicant knew expected to supply own tools and protective clothing. Respondent did not supervise or directly control applicant’s work. Applicant not integrated into respondent’s business. Applicant had been employee before so familiar with documentation needed for employment relationship. Applicant independent contractor. No jurisdiction. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s6 ; ERA s6(1) ; ERA s6(2) ; ERA s6(3) |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd (No 2) [2005] NZSC 34, [2005] 3 NZLR 721 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_226.pdf [pdf 140 KB] |