| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 299/10 |
| Hearing date | 11 Mar 2010 |
| Determination date | 25 June 2010 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | M Whitehead ; A Hopkinson |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Lenihan v Conspec Construction Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Whether applicant permanent or causal employee - Applicant claimed permanent employee - Respondent claimed applicant casual employee - Respondent claimed made it clear to applicant employed as causal employee - Two of respondent’s employees recalled applicant telling them was casual employee - Respondent claimed paid applicant holiday pay with each pay which would not have done if applicant permanent employee - Authority found applicant casual employee - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed - Found applicant casual employee - Found respondent made reasonable attempts to find ongoing work for applicant but none available - No dismissal - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant claimed owed holiday pay - Respondent claimed applicant paid holiday pay each week as part of pay as applicant causal employee - Found applicant’s payslips clearly showed applicant paid holiday pay as part of weekly pay - Found applicant received all holiday pay owed - PENALTY - Applicant claimed not provided with employment agreement - Authority accepted respondent’s evidence applicant provided with employment agreement but did not return it - Found as respondent did not ensure applicant signed and returned employment agreement technically did not fulfil obligations - However, accepted was oversight by respondent, not deliberate attempt to circumvent statutory obligation - In all circumstances penalty not appropriate |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 299_10.pdf [pdf 16 KB] |