| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 249/05 |
| Hearing date | 4 Jul 2005 |
| Determination date | 05 July 2005 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | no appearance ; R Alexander |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Marshall v Bettalife International Ltd and Anor |
| Other Parties | Bettalife International (NZ) Ltd (in liq) |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - No appearance by applicant - Identity of employer - No written employment agreement - Applicant cited first respondent as employer - First respondent alleged second respondent was employer - Second respondent suffered financial setback and first respondent set up as trading vehicle in event second respondent failed - Authority determined second respondent applicant's employer because it recruited and entered into employment relationship with her, continued to trade during her employment, and paid her - Second respondent now in liquidation and liquidators did not agree to commencement or continuation of proceedings against it - Applicant unable to continue against second respondent - Authority commented that applicant entitled to arrears of two days' wages, holiday pay calculated at 6% total gross earnings, and one week's pay in lieu of notice - Applicant should approach liquidator for payment |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1993 s248(1)(c);Companies Act 1993 s289;Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004;ERA s66 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 249_05.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |