| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 68 |
| Hearing date | 29 Mar 2011 |
| Determination date | 02 May 2011 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | P Drummond ; G O'Connell |
| Location | Palmerston North |
| Parties | Patterson v Workman |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Whether employee or independent contractor - Applicant claimed was employee and suffered unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal - Respondent claimed applicant independent contractor - Claimed if applicant was employee then was casual employee with no expectation of ongoing employment - Applicant engaged in part time capacity to feed and check horses while respondent away and to provide grooming services at horse shows - At horse show applicant claimed show jumper providing grooming services for made lewd and sexually suggestive comments to her and sexually assaulted her following night in horse truck provided as accommodation - Claimed respondent took no action when applicant complained - Claimed again suffered sexual harassment by show jumper at second show several weeks later - Applicant claimed not paid for a month - Applicant informed respondent did not want to work at forthcoming show - Claimed respondent terminated her employment - Claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to provide written employment agreement, failure to act on complaints of sexual harassment, and wrongly deducting money owed for saddle - Respondent claimed applicant engaged as contractor to replace another contractor who was temporarily unavailable - Claimed no intention to enter employment relationship - Claimed applicant not dismissed, rather declined to provide services at final show of year and services not required after that time - Respondent denied allegations of sexual harassment and said show jumper’s manner appropriate at all times - Authority found while applicant did not operate own business performed similar work for other parties at same time provided services to respondent - Found applicant not directly controlled by respondent - Found respondent gave general directions but left specific performance up to applicant - Found applicant enjoyed significant degree of control over activities to extent of being able to decline offer of work from respondent - Found applicant not closely integrated into respondent’s business - Found applicant acted in relieving capacity - Found no evidence employment agreement ever formed between parties - Found applicant was independent contractor - No jurisdiction - Application dismissed - Horse groomer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s6(2);ERA s102;ERA Second Schedule cl10(2) |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd and Ors [2005] ERNZ 372 ; [2005] 3 NZLR 721;Singh v Eric James & Associates Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 1 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_68.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |