| Summary |
ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY – Identity of employer - IRD summary of earnings showed, with exception of brief interregnum, employed by respondent - During interregnum employed by company associated with respondent - Respondent employer for all practical purposes - Disagreement over applicable employment agreement - Parties discussed new terms and conditions and unsigned employment agreement given to applicant included substantial pay increase - Applicant's claim proposed agreement required increased entitlements to be backdated unsustainable - If applicant wanted to rely on new agreement, should have signed it - Also, not respondent's intention for term of agreement to be construed so as to entitle applicant to backdated benefits - No arrears of wages owing - Contractual term stated holidays should be taken in year fell due - Clause also said respondent could specify leave period if parties did not agree, and leave forfeited in still not taken – Second part of clause void and severable - Breached Holidays Act 1981 - Also, no evidence respondent ever specified leave period - Reliance on forfeiture provisions misconceived - Agreement also stated applicant remained responsible for operations while on leave and required to arrange for responsibilities to be met - Unreasonably limited ability to take leave - Unfair of respondent, if not for restrictive nature of clause applicant would have taken leave and not been subject to purported forfeit - Arrears of holiday pay due and owing - Farm manager |