| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 393/05 |
| Hearing date | 24 Jan 2005 - 8 Feb 2005 (4 days) |
| Determination date | 04 October 2005 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | T Drake ; M Crotty |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Graham v Crestline Pty Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Unjustified dismissal - Redundancy - Identity of employer - Respondent alleged was not applicant's employer but that employer was its New Zealand subsidiary SA" - SA in liquidation - Relationship between parties looked at - Employment agreement was with SA not respondent - Applicant sought to rely on doctrine of non est factum because allegedly applicant was only given execution page of agreement, which he signed, and was then attached to a fundamentally different agreement than the one he had previously reviewed - Not accepted that was given the execution page only - Plea of non est factum not available here - Did not accept claim that SA was respondent's paying agent - Not persuaded that respondent was applicant's employer - Therefore could not take remaining claims any further - However, comments made about remaining claims - Regarding minimum term agreement, did not mention redundancy - If claim were open to applicant could have succeeded in respect of unexpired minimum period of employment agreement and notice requirement - Regarding redundancy claim, would not have been open to Authority to do more than assess whether genuine which it was - Was outstanding entitlement of payment in respect of unused annual leave but as respondent not employer, not liable for payment" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Bradley West Solicitors Nominee Co Ltd v Keeman [1994] 2 NZLR 111;McAulay v Sonoco New Zealand Ltd [1998] 2 ERNZ 225 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 393_05.pdf [pdf 65 KB] |