| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 310 |
| Hearing date | 9 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 15 July 2011 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | D Hayes ; M Hammond, K McLuskie |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Polzleitner v www Media Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether applicant employee – Applicant claimed employed by respondent – Respondent claimed never entered contractual relationship with applicant – Respondent claimed any work done by applicant in capacity as shareholder – Respondent claimed all shareholders agreed to put unpaid time into business – Respondent shareholder (“P”) engaged applicant for one-off paid development project – Applicant given shareholding in respondent business – P claimed applicant given shareholding without having to pay on understanding applicant would contribute unpaid sweat equity to develop business – Applicant only shareholder but one not financially contributed to business – Applicant claimed only started work for respondent because P offered employment during various conversations – P claimed never offered applicant paid work – Applicant claimed raised concern with P after not paid for first month’s work and told by P would be paid later – Applicant claimed after working for one month asked P for employment agreement – P denied having conversations – Applicant claimed resigned due to no pay – P claimed applicant left due to argument between them – Authority preferred P’s evidence – Respondent shareholders claimed applicant’s motivation for working without pay based on hope business would become successful and increase value of shareholding – Respondent shareholders claimed would never agreed for applicant to be only shareholder to receive salary – Respondent employee claimed applicant never raised concern about working without pay or made reference to being employed by respondent – Respondent shareholder claimed applicant stated did not expect to get paid until respondent could afford it – Applicant denied making statement – Found evidence from respondent shareholders and employee more likely to be correct than applicant’s – Found respondent did not use normal employment process for applicant – Found no documentation supporting applicant’s claims accepted employment and raised concerns about not being paid – Found unlikely applicant offered employment due to financial state of respondent – Found unlikely P would have provided applicant with accommodation if promised large salary – Found family rather than commercial based arrangement – No employment relationship – No jurisdiction |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s4(2);ERA s4(2)(a);ERA s4A;ERA s5;ERA s6;ERA s6(1);ERA s6(1)(a);ERA s6(2);ERA s6(3)(a);ERA s6(3)(b);ERA s65;ERA s114;ERA s161;ERA s161(2)(b) |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd and Ors [2005] ERNZ 372;McDonald v Ontrack Infrastructure Ltd and Anor [2010] ERNZ 223;Warwick Henderson Gallery Ltd v Weston [2005] ERNZ 921;Zink v www Media Ltd [2011] NZERA Auckland 310 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_310.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |