| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 137/07 |
| Hearing date | 21 Aug 2007 |
| Determination date | 15 October 2007 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | B Buckett ; P Cullen, F Lear |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Dickson v Wesley Community Action Trust |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Employment status - Whether homeworker or agent - Respondent had agreement with CYFS to provide foster care services – Agreement stated respondent would employ staff, although could engage personnel “on contract” – Caregivers required to provide care in own homes, meet prescribed obligations, attend training and be on call 24 hours – Parties agreement stated contracting relationship – Respondent described payment as reimbursement for costs associated with care, not wages – Claimed applicant had high level of discretion on how role carried out – Existence of provider agreement meant applicant not agent - Role clearly fit into category of “homeworker” – Applicant provided exclusive commitment to role, including use of his own home – Respondent had considerable control and rights and obligations could not be assigned – Applicant integral to respondent’s business and not able to profit from work - Alternatively respondent argued contracting relationship – If Authority wrong about applicant being homeworker, would still consider him employee, not contractor – Respondent’s alternative argument applicant volunteer rejected as applicant expected to be paid – Parties could progress to next step in resolving matter - Caregiver |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s5;ERA s6(1) |
| Cases Cited | Cashman v Central Regional Health Authority [1996] 2 ERNZ 156 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 137_07.pdf [pdf 51 KB] |