Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2011] NZERA Auckland 311
Hearing date 9 May 2011
Determination date 15 July 2011
Member R Larmer
Representation D Hayes ; M Hammond, K McLuskie
Location Hamilton
Parties Zink v www Media Ltd
Summary JURISDICTION – Whether applicant employee – Applicant claimed employed by respondent – Respondent claimed never entered contractual relationship with applicant – Applicant claimed shareholder of respondent (“P”) offered employment – Applicant claimed told by P jobs available despite poor English – P claimed did not offer applicant employment – P claimed applicant’s English not good enough to have had alleged conversation – Applicant changed evidence and accepted job offer relayed by fianc� – Authority found P did not offer applicant employment – Applicant accepted no discussion with P about key contractual terms – Found lack of discussion suggested applicant did not consider having entered legally binding relationship – Applicant accepted did not work normal business hours every day – Respondent claimed allowed applicant to sit at desk as viewed as family member – Applicant claimed developed database for respondent – Applicant accepted took work when left – P claimed had no knowledge of database work – Found P’s evidence more credible – Found applicant could not perform normal reception duties – Found no witnesses could identify work done by applicant – Found respondent did not use normal employment process for applicant – Found significant no documentation to support applicant’s claim – Found applicant not legally entitled to work – Found unlikely respondent would risk hiring applicant without work permit – No employment relationship – No jurisdiction
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Jurisdiction
Statutes ERA s4A;ERA s6(1);ERA s161(2)(b);Immigration Act 2009 s357
Cases Cited Polzleitner v www Media Ltd [2011] NZERA Auckland 310
Number of Pages 7
PDF File Link: 2011_NZERA_Auckland_311.pdf [pdf 22 KB]