| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 245/09 |
| Hearing date | 14 May 2009 |
| Determination date | 23 July 2009 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | J Watson ; S Menzies |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Induru v Medford House Dental Care Ltd |
| Summary | ARREARS OF WAGES – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant sought arrears of holiday pay and wages unlawfully deducted from final pay – Respondent claimed applicant consented to deduction upon acceptance of employment agreement (“EA”) – EA entitled respondent to retain monies at termination of contract for failed treatments which required re-treatment – Conflict of evidence whether applicant received EA – Parties verbally agreed to vary applicant’s work hours – Applicant provided respondent with written resignation outlining payment arrangements for balance owing – Applicant gave 6 weeks notice rather than 2 months notice as required by EA - Respondent acquiesced in applicant’s payment arrangement - Respondent subsequently advised applicant re-treatments needed therefore monies withheld for six months pursuant to EA – Authority preferred respondent’s evidence applicant received EA when employment commenced – Found despite applicant not signing EA, parties intended to be bound by EA, therefore deduction provision applied – Found, however, applicant’s resignation letter withdrew consent to deduction provisions – Found respondent could withhold costs of repeat treatment done before specified period pursuant to terms in applicant’s resignation letter – Found applicant’s withdrawal of consent did not limit respondent’s counterclaim for costs of re-treatment - Respondent ordered to pay applicant arrears of wages and holiday pay – Dentist |
| Result | Orders made ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay (Quantum to be determined) ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Statutes | Wages Protection Act 1983 s16 |
| Cases Cited | Coca-Cola Amatil (NZ) Ltd v Kaczorowski [1998] 1 ERNZ 264;Davis v Dulux (NZ) Ltd (1987) NZELC 95;Portia Developments Ltd v Taylor, unreported, Travis J, 9 Sept 1997, AC 100/97;Yeates v Jetstick Ltd, unreported, Dumbleton J, 10 Sept 2008, AA 320/08 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 245_09.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |