| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 283/04 |
| Hearing date | 18 Jun 2004 |
| Determination date | 06 September 2004 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | J Peebles ; L Lima |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Langhenkel v Lauro Lima t/a Royal Painting & Decorating |
| Summary | ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Agreement that holiday pay paid on pay as you go" basis - Early payment of holiday pay not prohibited where agreed - Applicant not entitled to be paid twice - ARREARS OF WAGES - Respondent also applicant's landlord - Alleged respondent deducted rent owing from applicant without written consent - Applicant received full wages in cash before complying with respondent's request for rent payment - No unlawful deduction - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant initially not given employment agreement because respondent genuinely but mistakenly believed applicant covered by WINZ agreement - Applicant justifiably concerned about agreement which provided for employment on "casual as required basis" and six month trial period - Went back on sickness benefit and refused to resume work because of dissatisfaction with agreement - No reason why applicant could not work under status quo while employment relationship problems resolved - No dismissal - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant not disadvantaged by failure to provide employment agreement - No unjustified disadvantage - Painter" |
| Result | Applicant dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 1981 s21;Wages Protection Act 1983 s4;Wages Protection Act 1983 s5 |
| Cases Cited | Drake Personnel (NZ) Ltd v Taylor [1996] 1 ERNZ 324;Gladstone Milk Bar Ltd v Henning [1998] 1 ERNZ 296 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |