| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 24/06 |
| Determination date | 17 February 2006 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | A Morgan-Roberts ; S Fairclough |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Watt v Eric James & Associates |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Whether independent contractor or employee - Contract between parties was a contract between a principal and its agent - Cover page referred to an attached employment agreement - Quite clearly, front page was attached in error - Applicant did not mention to Authority two interviews with respondent's chief executive which respondent said made clear what nature of relationship was to be - Dispute over whether, during training week, applicant was told she worked for respondent or represented respondent - Not persuaded that real nature of relationship was anything other than between a principal and a contractor - Respondent did everything reasonably could to alert applicant to fact of nature of arrangement - Accepted that initial interviews would have set out nature of relationship - Nothing that happened during training week or subsequently spoke of an employment relationship rather than contractual one - Respondent adequately explained why it required to know availability of applicant - Question of industry practice relevant - Claim failed |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 24_06.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |