| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Christchurch 153 |
| Determination date | 15 September 2017 |
| Member | C Hickey |
| Representation | P Tucker ; H Matthews |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Wijk v Ultimate Design & Renovation Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether applicant employee or independent contractor – Telemarketer |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;JURISDICTION: Employment Agreement contained terms suggesting a contractor relationship but terms were not determinative of the relationship status. Applicant confused about what it meant to be a contractor. Respondent set applicant’s hours of work and place of work. Applicant could not choose when or where she worked. Respondent strictly managed applicant’s time records. Applicant had to clock in and clock out for every shift. Respondent not correcting applicants’ belief to provide medical certificates was suggestive of employment relationship. Respondent provided applicant with all required equipment. Applicant trained new staff. Applicant integral to respondent’s business. Applicant’s submission of invoices paired with time clocking information did not strongly indicate relationship was that other than employee. Respondent paid applicants’ withholding tax on her behalf. Applicant not in business on her own account. Applicant employee. |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s3;ERA s6 |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] ERNZ 372 (SC);Brunton v Garden City Helicopters Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 29;Cardy Business Ltd Bizaoui (2005) 2 NZELR 245 (EmpC);Poulter v Antipodean Growers Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 77 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Christchurch_153.pdf [pdf 223 KB] |