| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 279/08 |
| Hearing date | 1 Aug 2008 |
| Determination date | 05 August 2008 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | P Warburton (in person) ; L Pethybridge (in person) |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Warburton v Pethybridge |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance with record of settlement – Authority noted confidentiality of terms of settlement should be preserved – Applicant employed by and lived on respondent’s farm – Respondent claimed did not comply with settlement because applicant vacated farm leaving damage, personal bills and taking property – Applicant denied respondent’s allegations – Authority found tenancy issues not a feature of employment relationship – Found respondent not established applicant had any obligation relating to missing wool packs, ear tags and grazing – Authority noted if respondent filed statement in reply in time, applicant would not have been confronted with allegations for first time at investigation meeting – Compliance ordered – No jurisdiction to order interest on compliance order sums - PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for breach – Authority found although respondent failed to meet settlement obligations, concerns were sincerely held – No penalty - COSTS – Applicant entitled to recovery of filing fee |
| Result | Application granted (compliance order) ; Compliance ordered ; Application dismissed (penalty) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Compliance Order |
| Statutes | ERA s149 |
| Cases Cited | Wolfenden v The New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd [1992] 2 ERNZ 21 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 279_08.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |