| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 7A/08 |
| Determination date | 24 September 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | B Fletcher ; No appearance |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Havenleigh Global Services Ltd v Toeikrathok and Ors |
| Other Parties | Khaorsri, Ngampak, Boonsm, Khangsamrong, Khambut, Kanmika |
| Summary | RECOVERY OF MONIES - Investigation re-opened – No appearance by respondents - Applicant claimed Authority failed to investigate and determine one issue raised in statement of problem – Labour Inspector directed applicant to pay holiday pay to two of respondents (“PT” and “WN”) – Authority found holiday pay already paid in hourly rate – Applicant sought to recover payments directed by Labour Inspector – Authority found had recourse to make order for repayment under s94A Judicature Act 1908 (“JA”) by reason of s162 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) – Found Labour Inspector made mistake of fact or law by applying s28(1) Holidays Act 2003 (“HA”) and failing to take account of s28(2) and s28(3) HA - Found provisions of JA and ERA satisfied because employment agreement existed, was related to enactment or rule of law relating to contracts, and was mistaken application of HA – Overpayment of holiday pay to be repaid |
| Result | Application granted ; |
| Main Category | Recovery of Monies |
| Statutes | ERA s161;ERA s162;Holidays Act 2003 s28(1)(a);Holidays Act 2003 s28(2);Holidays Act 2003 s28(3);Judicature Act 1908 s94A;Judicature Act 1908 s94B |
| Cases Cited | Master Builders’ Assn (Auckland) Incorporated v Doe [1997] ERNZ 331;North Shore City Council v Sutto (M Urlich, 30 May 2005, AA 201/05) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 7a_08.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |