| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 439/10 |
| Hearing date | 19 Apr 2010 |
| Determination date | 12 October 2010 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | M Wolff ; no appearance |
| Location | Gisborne |
| Parties | Ah Mu v East Coast Residential Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - No appearance for respondent - Whether employee or independent contractor - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Respondent claimed applicant independent contractor - Authority found although applicant provided with employment agreement not signed and payment not made according to its provisions - Found on that basis unable to treat employment agreement as demonstrating common intention as to nature of relationship - Found statements made by parties as to nature of relationship not determinative - Found applicant’s work controlled to a degree - Found applicant had responsibility for overseeing staff and was provided with training and equipment - Found applicant integrated into respondent’s business - Applicant claimed believed getting salary but had to invoice respondent weekly for it - Applicant paid GST but claimed believed that was part of arrangement of being employee - Authority found apart from taxation arrangements parties’ relationship indicative of employment relationship - Found applicant employee - Authority had jurisdiction - Salesperson |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s6;ERA s6(3)(b) |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 439_10.pdf [pdf 19 KB] |