| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 181/08 |
| Hearing date | 20 Nov 2008 |
| Determination date | 03 December 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | S Wilson ; J Smith |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Goodall v Simes Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Applicant managing director of real estate company (“Company”) - Applicant initiated discussions with respondent which culminated in agreement for sale and purchase of Company by respondent - Term of agreement for sale and purchase that respondent employ applicant as manager residential real estate sales - No written employment agreement – Applicant met with respondent’s chief executive (“H”) - H claimed meeting was to discuss applicant’s impending employment - Applicant believed already been in employment for one week - At meeting applicant disclosed made error in disclosing material information to H in relation to financial performance of Company - Error showed Company making profit, when actually making loss - H claimed applicant indicated would understand H lost trust and confidence in applicant and understood no place for applicant with respondent if that was what respondent wanted - Applicant claimed no termination of employment relationship at meeting - Series of meetings followed which focused on commercial arrangement between parties - Applicant contended effectively dismissed from employment at last meeting held - H denied dismissal occurred at last meeting as employment relationship at end, if ever started - Authority found employment relationship between parties - Satisfied law allowed Authority to conclude was intention by both parties to be bound, based on factual matrix - Authority found clear applicant worked in role for one week - Authority preferred respondent’s evidence as to what happened when applicant revealed misrepresentation - Found parties agreed applicant’s employment would terminate at that point - Having found employment relationship, Authority had jurisdiction to deal with applicant’s personal grievance claim - However, in finding employment relationship ended when it did, applicant’s personal grievance claim raised outside 90 day limit - Respondent denied consent for grievance to be raised out of time - Applicant not applied to raise claim out of time - Authority unable to take personal grievance claim any further - ARREARS OF WAGES - As applicant employed for one week, entitled to one week’s pay - Insufficient evidence for Authority to determine whether bonus payment appropriate - Respondent to also pay one week’s salary in lieu of notice period - Manager |
| Result | Applications granted ; Arrears of wages (one week) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (one weeks’ pay in lieu of notice) |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 s4;ERA s114;ERA s114(3) |
| Cases Cited | Barker v Armourguard Security Ltd [1998] 1 ERNZ 424 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 181_08.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |