| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 103/10 |
| Hearing date | 29 Oct 2009 |
| Determination date | 05 March 2010 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | J Broad (in person) ; T Rota |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Broad v Financial Gain (Auckland) Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether employee or independent contractor – No written contract between parties – Applicant thought relationship involved contract for services and filed dispute in Disputes Tribunal – Applicant advised may have been in employment relationship – Applicant claimed required to be present during office hours – Applicant claimed respondent had power to alter arrangement without notice – Applicant claimed profits and losses not shared and client ownership held by respondent – Applicant responsible for ACC levies and personal income tax – Respondent supplied stationary, phone, fax, photocopier and desktop computer – Applicant supplied laptop – Applicant claimed bound to respondent and not allowed to work elsewhere – Applicant paid monthly including GST – Respondent paid for professional indemnity and public liability insurance – Respondent claimed applicant contracted to various companies and entered verbal agreements to complete various tasks to maintain commission advance – Respondent claimed applicant submitted monthly invoice – Respondent claimed applicant had to complete contracts and disclosure statements – Respondent claimed applicant had no set hours – Respondent argued no profits to share – Respondent funded stationary in attempt to create single brand for various businesses – Respondent provided phone, fax and photocopier because applicant indicated could not afford such things – Applicant paid commission – Various contracted businesses had professional indemnity and public liability insurance and covered respondent – Authority found intention to enter contract for services – Found applicant had no set hours and free to pursue business interests – Found applicant’s relationship with respondent was business relationship – Found applicant in business on own account – Found contracts for services common in financial services industry – Found applicant independent contractor |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s6(2) |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2003] ERNZ 581;Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 372 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 103_10.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |