Jurisdiction - Employment Relations Act 2000
Hollis v JV Hiab Transport Ltd
14 Dec 2007, V Campbell, AA 394/07, (8 pages)
JURISDICTION - Whether employee or director/shareholder - Applicant alleged owed arrears of wages and holiday pay - Respondent contended applicant director/shareholder who received drawings as and when it could afford to pay - Applicant acknowledged did not ask for employment agreement as knew he was shareholder - Applicant’s hours guided by requirements of clients - Parties intended to have shareholder relationship and applicant had access to company documents - Applicant accepted shared responsibility for managing business with other director - Applicant working shareholder, not employee - Driver
Result:
Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Scott & Anor v Skin & Steel Ltd
13 Oct 2008, R A Monaghan, AA 353/08, (8 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of respondent - Statement of problem cited respondent and Kustom Tattoo Limited (“KT”) as respondents – Respondent and KT had same sole shareholder and director – Authority found no evidence that applicants employed by KT - KT struck out as a respondent – JURISDICTION – First applicant (“S”) to help organise event for respondent – S to provide timesheets and invoice respondent for hours worked and expenses incurred – Respondent argued whether S to be paid was contingent on event making money – S claimed was to be paid when event sponsorship finalised, regardless of success of event – Fact that S’s activities of kind expected of assistant to principal event organiser, did not of itself mean employment relationship existed – Authority noted that friendships, looseness of business arrangements and inexperience in management caused confusion - Second applicant (“F”) engaged under same arrangement as S – F primarily assisted and accompanied S – F engaged for less than one week – Written employment agreements destroyed by respondent, so S’s recollection of contents preferred – Found nothing in contents of signed agreements in favour of finding of employment relationships – Found parties intended relationships to be more formal than simply arrangements between friends, but no mutual intention to enter employment relationships – Initial discussions not capable of being construed as offers of employment – No discussion about key terms of employment – No constraints or requirements regarding hours of work – No element of control indicative of employment relationship - No employment relationships – Personal grievances and claims for monies owed not available remedies - Event organiser
Result:
Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved
