Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 210/06
Hearing date 7 Jun 2006
Determination date 22 June 2006
Member A Dumbleton
Representation D Erickson ; A McKay
Location Auckland
Parties Willis v Fernridge Holdings Ltd
Summary JURISDICTION - Whether employee or independent contractor - No dispute initially entered into employment relationship - Applicant requested change to remuneration arrangement, and began invoicing respondent - Applicant performed same work and received same remuneration - Motive for change not as important as intention - Parties did not intend to change substance of relationship - Applicant an employee - Arrears claim could proceed - RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Applicant sought leave to raise grievance out of time - Applicant claimed so affected or traumatised unable to properly consider raising personal grievance - Actions of applicant after dismissal showed ability to think and act normally - Authority did not accept prevented from complaining about contended dismissal for months on end - Employment agreement did not contain plain language explanation of dispute resolution procedures - Provision not statutory requirement when employment agreement entered into - Merits of applicant's claim lowered as wanted appearance of independent contractor whilst retaining benefits of employee - Overall delay of about 18 months great enough that in justice leave should be declined - Applicant introduced equivocality into relationship which counted against her when looking at justice of matter - No exceptional circumstances - Marketing manager
Result Application granted (Jurisdiction) ; Application dismissed (Raising personal grievance) ; Costs reserved
Statutes ERA s65, ERA s114(5), ERA s115, ERA s115(a), ERA s115(c), ERA s242(2)
Cases Cited Gillespie v Data Group Ltd unreported, K Raureti, 25 July 2003, AA 224/03
Number of Pages 5
PDF File Link: aa 210_06.pdf [pdf 64 KB]