| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 128/08 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jan 2008 |
| Determination date | 03 April 2008 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | J Peebles ; R Alchin |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Reading v Civil Engineering Solutions Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Authority determined jurisdiction issue before addressing applicant’s arrears and personal grievance claims – Respondent argued applicant a partner of respondent and agreed would not work for remuneration but take profit share – Director of respondent (“W”) and applicant agreed to start up respondent business after their previous employer went into receivership – Applicant and W decided applicant’s partner (“D”) would become a director – Applicant argued did not want to be director because owed money to IRD and unable to provide estimated income figure – Authority found applicant’s evidence contradictory given further evidence that agreed on hourly wage rate with W – Authority found D’s evidence persuasive that applicant and W working on equal terms and neither paid wages – Applicant argued had no real knowledge of banking facilities or access to cheque books – Authority found upon further questioning, applicant conceded had written some cheques – Authority satisfied respondent’s employees reported to both applicant and W equally – Authority found fact applicant free to come and go from work consistent with conclusion applicant more than an employee – Authority found while D named as director true situation was D involved in respondent in name only – Found at commencement of respondent both applicant and W intended equal partnership – Authority treated D’s evidence with caution as unable to recall details about arrangement but later recalled details with clarity – Authority also found D did not include applicant on payroll but had control to if believed applicant an employee – Authority found applicant and W agreed would forego payment for efforts until respondent on positive financial footing – Found evidence strongly suggested applicant something other than an employee – Authority concluded relationship at all times a contract for service – No jurisdiction |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Cases Cited | Smith v Practical Plastics Ltd [1998] 1 ERNZ 323;Curlew v Harvey Norman Stores (NZ) Pty Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 114;Koia v Carlyon Holdings Ltd [2001] 1 ERNZ 585;Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] 3 NZLR 721 (SC);Bryson v Three Foot Six [2003] 1 ERNZ 581 (EC) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 128_08.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |