|
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Barr v P and L Byrne Farming Partnership
31 Mar 2008, H Doyle, CA 31/08, (6 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Identity of employer - Parties agreed during directions conference respondent correct employer - JURISDICTION - Applicant employed for season by sharemilker ("L") - Applicant also job shared with husband ("H") - No additional cost to respondent when applicant performed H's duties - L advised applicant and H that leaving farm and therefore no longer employed by L - Respondent offered position of lower order sharemilker on farm by then owners - Applicant claimed was person intending to work for respondent - Applicant claimed employment did not go ahead and unjustifiably dismissed when H dismissed - Applicant claimed felt employment treated as added on to H - Respondent argued job offer only made to applicant on condition employment agreement signed - Respondent argued offer to applicant did not include farm accommodation applicant residing in - Authority found applicant's acceptance of offer of employment capable of being inferred because of common elements shared with H - Found applicant to carry on with arrangement that had with L - Found offer to applicant not conditional on signing EA - Found applicant and respondent intended to and did enter into binding EA - Found applicant person intending to work as relief milker on job share basis with H - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Authority found when H dismissed respondent took no steps to advise applicant that employment would continue - Found dismissal occurred in absence of clarification by respondent to contrary - No attempt by respondent to justify dismissal - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Authority took into account respondent's attempt to make clear to applicant position available on farm went someway to reducing humiliation suffered - No contributory conduct - $2000 compensation appropriate - Milker
Result: Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Costs reserved
Goodall v Simes Ltd
3 Dec 2008, J Crichton, CA 181/08, (12 pages)
JURISDICTION - Applicant managing director of real estate company ("Company") - Applicant initiated discussions with respondent which culminated in agreement for sale and purchase of Company by respondent - Term of agreement for sale and purchase that respondent employ applicant as manager residential real estate sales - No written employment agreement - Applicant met with respondent's chief executive ("H") - H claimed meeting was to discuss applicant's impending employment - Applicant believed already been in employment for one week - At meeting applicant disclosed made error in disclosing material information to H in relation to financial performance of Company - Error showed Company making profit, when actually making loss - H claimed applicant indicated would understand H lost trust and confidence in applicant and understood no place for applicant with respondent if that was what respondent wanted - Applicant claimed no termination of employment relationship at meeting - Series of meetings followed which focused on commercial arrangement between parties - Applicant contended effectively dismissed from employment at last meeting held - H denied dismissal occurred at last meeting as employment relationship at end, if ever started - Authority found employment relationship between parties - Satisfied law allowed Authority to conclude was intention by both parties to be bound, based on factual matrix - Authority found clear applicant worked in role for one week - Authority preferred respondent's evidence as to what happened when applicant revealed misrepresentation - Found parties agreed applicant's employment would terminate at that point - Having found employment relationship, Authority had jurisdiction to deal with applicant's personal grievance claim - However, in finding employment relationship ended when it did, applicant's personal grievance claim raised outside 90 day limit - Respondent denied consent for grievance to be raised out of time - Applicant not applied to raise claim out of time - Authority unable to take personal grievance claim any further - ARREARS OF WAGES - As applicant employed for one week, entitled to one week's pay - Insufficient evidence for Authority to determine whether bonus payment appropriate - Respondent to also pay one week's salary in lieu of notice period - Manager
Result: Applications granted ; Arrears of wages (one week) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (one weeks' pay in lieu of notice)
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
|
