| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 185/09 |
| Hearing date | 20 Oct 2009 |
| Determination date | 23 October 2009 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | M Patrick ; J Shingleton |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Patrick v John & Anor |
| Other Parties | Mana Awhi Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether applicant employee – Applicant claimed employment relationship formed before second respondent incorporated therefore entitled to arrears of wages and holiday pay – First and second respondent argued applicant not employee at all material times – Applicant and first respondent in domestic relationship and agreed to set up second respondent with financial assistance from first respondent – Parties’ solicitor instructed to incorporate second respondent with first respondent as sole director and shareholder – Parties intended applicant perform management role and control second respondent’s finances, including ability to withdraw from account – Several altercations occurred between parties when first respondent discovered applicant made inappropriate expenditures using second respondent’s funds – Applicant claimed in one incident, first respondent asserted applicant was employee and promised applicant would be paid wages once second respondent profitable – Second respondent incorporated and registered - Applicant did not receive wages or salary and made irregular payments to personal account – Applicant claimed payments were wages - Domestic and business relationship deteriorated and first respondent took control over second respondent – Authority found applicant’s claim problematic as it relied on having access to second respondent’s account which opened after second respondent incorporated – Accordingly found no employment relationship before second respondent incorporated – Found solicitor instructions did not evidence intention to employ applicant – Found applicant controlled second respondent’s funds and first respondent only periodically checked applicant’s spending – Found altercations relating to applicant’s expenditures occurred in domestic relationship context – Found no words used by first respondent evidencing employment relationship during altercations – Found payments applicant made to personal account irregular and less than shown on payslip – Found parties’ discussions relating to payments made without reference to employment relationship – Found payments made by applicant akin to business principal reimbursing themselves for company expenses – No employment relationship – No jurisdiction - Not Authority’s role to determine legal nature of parties’ relationship beyond findings |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s6;Property (Relationships) Act 1976 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 185_09.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |