| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 23/06 |
| Hearing date | 10 Feb 2006 |
| Determination date | 13 February 2006 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | J Patching (in person) ; no appearance |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Patching v KSM Installations (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Respondent's counsel advised three days prior to investigation meeting that he was unable to attend because of High Court appearance - High Court appearance was moving nephew's admission to bar - Refused Authority's proposal to accommodate this by adjournment for some of day - Advised respondent's directors also unable to attend - Appropriate for Authority to proceed - Employment Court could be assisted by good faith report in event respondent challenged determination - JURISDICTION - Whether independent contractor or employee - No written agreement - At respondent's suggestion applicant invoiced respondent using company he had previously set up for franchise he had operated - While respondent described staff as contractors, reality was that applicant was employee - Respondent held to itself power to control hours worked by applicant, to hire and fire applicant, and to profit or lose from enterprise - Respondent supplied all materials including equipment, and applicant not expected to take skills elsewhere - Hammer-hand |
| Result | Application granted ; Filing fee in favour of applicant ($70) |
| Statutes | ERA s6(2);ERA s173;ERA s181;ERA Second Schedule cl12 |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2003] 1 ERNZ 581;Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd and Ors [2005] 3 NZLR 721 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 23_06.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |