| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 139/10 |
| Hearing date | 23 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 25 March 2010 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | D Hopper (in person) ; J Poole |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hopper v Above Ground Ltd t/a Soulscape |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether respondent applicant’s employer - Applicant claimed had employment relationship with respondent – Claimed consultant (“F”), engaged by respondent, offered and applicant accepted employment agreement (“EA”) – Respondent argued F had no ostensible authority to employ applicant on behalf of respondent – Argued did not know or acquiesced in alleged employment – Applicant sought business advice from F – F advised applicant in partnership with respondent – Emails between F and applicant discussed EA terms – Applicant signed document headed “Terms of Employment” with respondent as employer – Following day, F confirmed applicant “on board” – Applicant subsequently met respondent – Respondent made clear no EA authorised by respondent – Applicant continued work until F terminated alleged EA – Authority found F had no ostensible authority to employ applicant – Found F not partners with or director of respondent - Applicant claimed required to visit potential client with knowledge of respondent – Claimed respondent offered to pay applicant $1,000 for work done – Found evidence not sufficient to establish representation of employment relationship by respondent – Found applicant’s work consistent with being a consultant engaged to work on business plans – Found respondent’s $1,000 offer to resolve dispute for work done by applicant as consultant, not acknowledgement of employment relationship – Found respondent unequivocally denied employment relationship – Found no evidence applicant engaged in substantive work for respondent - Found respondent not applicant’s employer – No jurisdiction – COSTS – Parties self-represented |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1993 s385 |
| Cases Cited | Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1986] AC 717;NZ Building Trades Union v Ebert Bros Construction Limited [1991] 3 ERNZ 1004;Pole v Leask [1861-73] All ER Rep 535 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 139_10.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |