| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 333/04 |
| Hearing date | 13 Sep 2004 - 1 Oct 2004 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 11 October 2004 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | D Marriott ; B Andrews |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Van Lingen v Hasieman Holdings Ltd and Anor |
| Other Parties | Fetherston |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Whether employee or independent contractor - Applicant signed contract for services with respondent - Invoiced respondent for agreed monthly payments - Close direction and supervision by respondent - Applicant privy to sensitive commercial information and given authority to close deals" on behalf of respondent - Representative of respondent who offered applicant work had authority to do so - Binding agreement between applicant and respondent - Factors indicating agreement was between principal and contractor more matters of form than substance - On balance real nature of relationship was employment - Authority had jurisdiction to determine applicant's employment relationship problem - Parties directed to attempt mediation - Sales and marketing manager" |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | ERA s6(2);ERA s6(3) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |