| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 10/09 |
| Hearing date | 18 Jun 2008 |
| Determination date | 19 January 2009 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | S P Westwell (Applicant in person) ; C I Wheeler (Respondent in person) |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Westwell v Wheeler |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether employee or independent contractor – Applicant claimed arrears of holiday pay owed due to being an employee – Respondent claimed subsequent employment agreement (“EA”) and applicant’s tax code indicated parties’ intentions were that applicant be a contractor – Authority found parties intended applicant to be an employee but subsequently changed EA to reflect a contractual relationship – Found under control test, respondent controlled applicant’s performance of duties and control consistent with employment relationship – Found under integration test, applicant’s duties were central to the operation of respondent’s business – Found under fundamental test, applicant had no scope to generate increased profits to show applicant operating own business – Found applicant an employee – Applicant entitled to arrears of holiday pay sought - Foreman Painter |
| Result | Application granted ; Arrears of holiday pay ($7,972.92) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s6 |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 372 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 10_09.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |