| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 41/08 |
| Hearing date | 27 Mar 2008 |
| Determination date | 16 April 2008 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | J Stockman-Quicke (in person) ; J Wilson (in person), E Dennis-Bishop, DW Moore |
| Location | New Plymouth |
| Parties | Stockman-Quicke v Jeanette Wilson Ltd and Anor |
| Other Parties | The Dharmic Trust |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Statement of problem named Jeanette Wilson Ltd (“company”) and Dharmic Trust (“trust”) as respondents – “JW” was one of trust’s trustees and sole shareholder of company – Various documents cited either trust or company as employer - Applicant considered JW boss and supervisor during employment – Authority found difference between “boss” and identity of correct legal employer - Found applicant not employed by JW personally – Applicant employed part time for company during some periods and full time for trust during some periods – ARREARS OF WAGES – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought payment of holiday pay and sick leave – Holiday pay not reconciled at end of employment – Dispute over leave taken – Authority primarily relied on JW’s records, despite inadequacies – Found insufficient evidence to support applicant’s claim of pre-employment arrangement for paid leave – Authority calculated leave taken during employment with company separately from leave taken during employment with trust – Authority balanced arrears owed against payments already made – No arrears of holiday pay owing – Authority found applicant only entitled to five days sick leave – Claim for sick pay dismissed - Applicant claimed training was employment matter – Respondent claimed was commercial matter – Authority found no contractual arrangement for training and insufficient evidence of respondents’ commitment to pay training fees and expenses – Matter outside employment relationship – Claims dismissed - Nothing owed in employment relationship - RECOVERY OF MONIES – Counterclaim – Respondent sought recovery of value of work respondent claimed not undertaken due to poor performance during applicant’s notice period – Authority found no contractual term to recover wages for failure to complete work properly – Found applicant often worked from home and respondent had no performance appraisal process – Counterclaim dismissed - COSTS – Both parties sought costs – Parties represented selves – Respondent retained some services – Authority found respondent to take responsibility for poorly kept records – Costs to lie where they fall |
| Result | Applications dismissed (arrears of holiday pay)(arrears of wages)(recovery of monies) ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Statutes | Wages Protection Act 1983 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 41_08.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |