| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 165/06 |
| Hearing date | 28 Apr 2006 |
| Determination date | 10 May 2006 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | M Keall ; M Robins |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | De Witte v AGR Matthey (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Whether independent contractor or employee - Applicant sold moulds, patterns, goodwill, plant and machinery to respondent - Applicant alleged he then entered into three year fixed term employment agreement - Respondent denied applicant was employee and alleged he signed a commercial agreement - No terms or conditions either express or which could be implied through conduct of relationship that would be indicative of employment relationship - Intention of both parties to have independent contractor relationship - Respondent did not impose any control on how, when or where applicant provided his services - Applicant's expertise and design making was integral to business of respondent but that was not determinative of matter - Applicant provided GST invoices for payment, described himself as a Consultant, and told Manager a supplier had wrongly attributed respondent's name to applicant - Facts indicative of applicant being independent contractor - Industry practice - Common ground that within jewellery manufacturing business was common to employ staff rather than independent contractors - Real relationship that of contract for service - No jurisdiction |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | ERA s6 |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Limited [2003] 1 ERNZ 581;Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd and Ors [2005] 1 ERNZ 372 ; [2005] 3 NZLR 721;Curlew v Harvey Norman Stores (NZ) Pty Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 114;Koia v Carlyon Holdings Ltd [2001] ERNZ 585 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 165_06.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |