| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 391/05 |
| Hearing date | 26 Aug 2005 |
| Determination date | 03 October 2005 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | R Ogle (in person) ; A Wright |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Ogle v The Swim Centre Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Whether employee or independent contractor - Applicant did property maintenance work for respondent on labour only" contractor basis - Subsequently respondent sought applicant's help for renovation - Presented offer of engagement labelling applicant "independent contractor" - Applicant's wife wanted applicant to be employee because of paperwork required for independent contractors in respect of tax obligations - New agreement identified parties as "employer" and "employee" - Labels not decisive but significant pointers to intention - Respondent attended renovation project most days and wanted applicant to work as much as possible - Applicant not part of respondent's ongoing swim school business - However, carpenters, plumbers and painters working short-term projects generally could be employees or contractors and test added nothing in particular circumstances - Applicant did not appear to have been in business on own account - Contrary factors were applicant's references to himself as being his "own man" and applicant's non-attendance at work on two occasions without seeking leave - Real nature of relationship one of employment - Renovator" |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 391_05.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |