| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 153/09 |
| Hearing date | 2 Dec 2008 |
| Determination date | 14 May 2009 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | T Tran ; M Beech, S Grice |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Pillay v Radius Security Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether employee or independent contractor – Applicant claimed employee and unjustifiably dismissed – Applicant provided accounting services to respondent paid by invoices – Applicant renegotiated remuneration after restructure of respondent – Written agreement governed parties’ relationship – Authority found parties’ intention applicant be contractor – Found respondent had high level of control over applicant’s performance of duties and structure of accountability present – Found applicant’s work integrated into respondent - Found applicant fundamentally person in business on their own account – Found applicant experienced accountant and knew difference between employee and contractor – Finding under fundamental test outweighed findings under control and integration test – Found applicant independent contractor – No jurisdiction – Accountant |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s6;ERA s6(1);ERA s6(2) |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] ERNZ 461;Clark v Northland Hunt Inc, unreported, Perkins J, 27 Nov 2006, AC66/06;Smith v Practical Plastics Ltd [1998] 1 ERNZ 323 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 153_09.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |