| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 360 |
| Hearing date | 17 Feb 2011 - 18 Feb 2011 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 17 August 2011 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | C Patterson ; J Hannan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Mayne and Ors v Polychem Marketing Ltd |
| Other Parties | Craig, Kerr |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether Authority had jurisdiction to deal with applicant’s claim – Applicants claimed deprived unlawfully of subsidised healthcare cover (SHC) by respondent – Applicants continued to receive SHC from respondent after employment ended – Respondent took over employment of applicants – Second and third applicants never employed by respondent – First applicant claimed agreed to pay respondent back cost of premiums for SHC provided respondent continued paying for second and third applicants SHC – Respondent claimed no trade off with third applicant and decided to continue to pay premiums for second and third applicants because of their personal circumstances – Applicants claimed certain obligations under employment contracts survived cessation of work and continued to bind respondent – Authority found no employment relationship had been formed between applicants and respondent since Employment Relations Act 2000 enacted – Found respondent did not take on responsibility for SHC under enforceable obligation from employment contracts with applicants – Found second and third applicants may have had action based upon alleged failure of employer to preserve ongoing interest in receiving SHC but action may have been outside scope of employment law and law of contract – Found applicants unable to enforce potential contractual promise by respondent to continue providing applicants SHC under Contracts (Privity) Act 1992 as time of alleged contract outside Act’s coverage – Found respondent voluntarily provided SHC to applicants and had no legal obligation to do so – Found entitlement claimed by applicants could not be founded on custom and practice – No jurisdiction |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s5;ERA s161;ERA s162;ERA s242;ERA s243;Contracts (Privity) Act 1992;Employment Contracts Act 1991 |
| Cases Cited | Rolling Thunder Motor Company Ltd v Kennedy [2010] NZEmpC 109;Waikato Rugby Union (Inc) v New Zealand Rugby Football Union (Inc) [2002] 1 ERNZ 752 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_360.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |