| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 19/06 |
| Hearing date | 25 Jan 2006 |
| Determination date | 02 February 2006 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | DA Hankins (in person) ; no appearance |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hankins v Ashley |
| Summary | ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - No appearance for respondent - Applicant sought three weeks' holiday pay - No written employment agreement - Identity of employer - Applicant alleged she was employed directly by respondent and nothing indicated she was employed by or on behalf of companies owned by respondent - None of respondent's replies suggested he considered he was not responsible for paying applicant - Applicant employed by respondent - Applicant did not go to work after she was not paid for two weeks - Respondent told her that he could not afford her anymore and needed to call it quits here today" - Applicant did not take issue with genuineness of redundancy - Applicant entitled to holiday pay - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Authority could not award compensation for redundancy as no term of employment providing for such compensation - However applicant entitled to period of notice of her dismissal, and failing that, payment for period of notice - Taking into account applicant's role in respondent's business and length of service, reasonable notice period was two weeks - Applicant also entitled to be reimbursed by respondent for cost of filing application with Authority - Manager" |
| Result | Application granted ; Arrears of holiday pay ($2,004.63) ; Damages (notice) ($1,336.42) ; No order for costs ; Filing fee in favour of applicant ($70) |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 19_06.pdf [pdf 13 KB] |