| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 23/08 |
| Hearing date | 19 Nov 2007 |
| Determination date | 25 January 2008 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | J Hardaker ; P Dawson |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | James v Cooney Financial Services Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Respondent denied employment relationship with applicant - Parties previously operated own businesses from same premises with some client sharing under contract - Respondent considered joining franchise which did not allow engagement of contractors - Applicant considered employment agreement formed when respondent asked if she wanted to be part of new proposal and she accepted - Respondent merely seeking expression of interest and saw actions as invitation to treat - At time had not finalised commitment to franchise, and new arrangement would be only reason for change - Number of subsequent events reinforced idea of employment to applicant, including participation in training sessions and business cards, but did not mean agreement reached - Nothing beyond vague conversation about other fundamental terms of employment, including remuneration - No offer of employment and therefore no dismissal - Insurance advisor |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Cases Cited | Canterbury Hotel etc IUOW v The Elms Motor Lodge Limited [1989] 1 NZILR 958 ; (1989) Sel Cas 277 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 23_08.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |