| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 383 |
| Determination date | 05 September 2011 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | Y Yang (in person) ; Yes Construction Ltd |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Yang v Hao and Anor |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether applicant employee or independent contractor – Applicant claimed was employee of second respondent and sought arrears of wages – Respondents claimed applicant was independent contractor – Respondents agreed to invest in construction project with applicant and as applicant was unable to invest money in project it was agreed that applicant’s investment would take form of undertaking project management – Authority found no documentation, orally agreed terms or conduct that established applicant was employed by second respondent – Found no evidence that applicant was subject to the control of second respondent in the provision of services or that applicant’s position was integral to the second respondent’s operation – Found brochure and various emails and invoices supported conclusion that applicant was independent contractor and in business on own account – Found applicant produced no evidence to show that had approached second respondent to discuss non-payment of wages over nine month period – Found sufficient evidence to show applicant was independent contractor and in business on own account – No jurisdiction – Project Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s6;ERA s103(1)(b) |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 372;Cunningham v TNT Express Worldwide (NZ) Ltd [1993] ERNZ 695;Muollo v Rotaru [1995] 2 ERNZ 414 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_383.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |