| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 194/09 |
| Hearing date | 7 Dec 2009 |
| Determination date | 11 December 2009 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | P Chemis, A Pazin ; A Schinack, A Crocker |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Smith v DTZ New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Applicant used two personal cell phones for business calls – Applicant argued agreement reached to transfer cell phone accounts into respondent’s name and would transfer back if left position – Applicant resigned and asked respondent to transfer cell phone accounts into applicant’s name – Respondent claimed ownership of cell phone numbers – Respondent argued more likely no such agreement entered into about cell phone numbers - Nothing in writing where other similar arrangements were in writing – Applicant never owned one number because network changed during employment and therefore number also changed – Other agreements did not provide for number to be transferred back to employee upon resignation – Respondent invoiced and paid accounts – Authority found likely arrangement did exist – Found applicant personally remembered history of arrangement whereas two others directly involved had no recollection – Found other arrangements in writing occurred several years after applicant’s arrangement – Found intention of what was agreed clear – Found change in network did not change core numbers – Found applicant had reasonable expectation for return of cell phone numbers – Found respondent required to return cell phone numbers – Found respondent had opportunity to comply before further action taken |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 194_09.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |