Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 492/05
Hearing date 26 Sep 2005
Determination date 22 December 2005
Member K J Anderson
Representation A Hope ; G Spry
Location Auckland
Parties Antram v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd
Summary DISPUTE - Alleged owed unpaid redundancy compensation since respondent failed to take into account his total years of continuous service - Applicant was employed by respondent from 1970 until 1993 - In 1994 applicant was independent contractor providing consultancy services to respondent until 2001 when he again became an employee until his redundancy in 2004 - Applicant alleged independent contractor contracts were a sham and he was, in reality, an employee for the whole time - Not accepted contracts were shams - Applicant formed registered company - Financial records indicated contractor relationship - Applicant's company was registered for GST - Applicant free to contract his services to other businesses - Applicant never received or claimed statutory entitlements such as holiday payments - Also took into account factors that could point to employment relationship such as use of title General Manager" and some integration into businesses - Employment not continuous - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - No evidence or submissions about unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage claims - Authority gained impression applicant not seriously pursuing those claims - If mistaken about that however, no evidence that would support either of those claims - Claims dismissed - Applicant close to having entitlement to payment for 25 years service but did not qualify - In any event, applicant barred from pursuing claims from 1970-1993 period by s4 Limitation Act 1950"
Result Question answered in favour of respondent ; Applications dismissed (Unjustified dismissal and disadvantage) ; Costs reserved
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: aa 492_05.pdf [pdf 50 KB]