| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 470/09 |
| Hearing date | 23 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 23 December 2009 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | K Hughes ; R Harrison |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Stockman v Protective Paints Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Applicant claimed became respondent’s employee during sale and purchase process between respondent and another company (“BM”) – Respondent argued applicant remained BM’s employee at all material times – Respondent entered into sale and purchase agreement to purchase BM – Applicant BM’s employee when agreement entered into – Agreement provided BM liable for wages until possession date which would be transferred to respondent – Respondent’s director (“W”) announced to staff respondent would take over wage payments from specified date - Applicant made wage payments in respondent’s name without respondent’s permission – Settlement process delayed and respondent did not take over wage payments on specified date – Respondent made no formal offers of employment – Applicant had altercation with W and notified BM’s director (“C”) of resignation – C persuaded applicant to continue employment with BM until settlement confirmed – Settlement further delayed and C notified employees still remained on BM’s payroll – Authority found applicant BM’s employee at all material times – Found resignation notice given to BM not respondent supporting applicant BM’s employee – Found no offer and acceptance of employment between applicant and respondent - Respondent not correct employer – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Authority found even if applicant respondent’s employee, no constructive dismissal as insufficient evidence to support claim – No dismissal - Payroll officer |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 470_09.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |