Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Booker v Lifestyle Decorators Ltd
22 Sep 2006, R Arthur, AA 304/06, (2 pages)
ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant Labour Inspector sought arrears of holiday pay, interest, penalty and filing fee - No appearance by respondent - Applicant's unchallenged evidence accepted - Arrears due and owing - Interest 8 percent - PENALTY - Penalty awarded against respondent - Painter
Result: Application granted ; Arrears of holiday pay ($784.80) ; Interest (8%) ; Penalty ($500)(Payable to Crown) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
Ireton v River City Export Beef Ltd
22 Sep 2006, GJ Wood, WA 129/06, (3 pages)
ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Respondent accepted arrears of holiday pay and wages due and owing - However, claimed had no assets and significant other liabilities and applicant must remain creditor - Applicant also sought pay for unpaid sick leave taken as result of stress - Respondent declined to pay as did not accept responsible for stressors applicant suffering from - Genuine illness - Applicant had outstanding sick leave entitlements and entitled to be paid for period - Plant/Compliance manager
Result: Application granted : Arrears of wages ($588.45)(3 days) ; ($3,923.08)(notice) ; ($980)(sick leave) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($784.60) ; Costs reserved
Jennings v Rodney's Welding Shop Ltd
5 Sep 2006, D King, AA 281/06, (3 pages)
ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant sought unpaid annual leave and reimbursement of wages deducted for purportedly unsatisfactory work - No appearance by respondent - At start of investigation meeting Authority informed company in liquidation - Authority support officer also told company no longer trading - Respondent still on companies register and no indication in liquidation - As respondent chose not appear, determination based on applicant's evidence - Holiday pay owing on termination of employment - Deductions illegal - Arrears due and owing - Interest 9.5 percent - PENALTY - Penalty appropriate for breach of Wages Protection Act 1983 - Only Labour Inspector could bring action to recover penalty for breach of s75 Holidays Act 2003
Result: Application granted ; Arrears of wages ($225) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($527.58) ; Interest (9.5%) ; Penalty ($4,000)($2,000 payable to Crown, $2,000 payable to applicant) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
Labour Inspector (A Taljaard) v R. J. Wireless Ltd
12 Sep 2006, J Scott, AA 287/06, (2 pages)
ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant Labour Inspector sought arrears of holiday pay on behalf of L - Parties reached agreement on amount owing - Respondent sought direction that L return property belonging to respondent - L directed to return respondent's cellphone immediately
Result: Application granted ; Arrears of holiday pay ($865.39) ; Orders accordingly ; Costs to lie where they fall
Li v Astral Management Ltd
24 Aug 2006, P Cheyne, CA 129/06, (5 pages)
ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Two written employment agreements; one in Mandarin, other in English - Significantly different terms - English agreement signed last and applied during employment - Accuracy of applicant's record of hours worked not accepted - Overtime claim rejected - Authority did not accept applicant commenced employment before restaurant opened - Benefit of any doubt about wages paid given to applicant as respondent failed to keep proper record - Outstanding sum could represent alleged deductions - Deductions illegal as respondent never had written authority - Respondent conceded holiday pay owing - Arrears due and owing - Employment agreement included bonus provision - Agreement did not say discretionary - No bonus paid but applicant periodically given gifts and cash - Fair to treat these as discharging obligation to pay bonus - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Applicant alleged respondent breached duty by failing to renew work permit - Continued working for two days after permit expired then went to Police, alleging respondent would not return passport - Passport with respondent's solicitor to process renewal application - Personal grievance raised and applicant made clear did not want permit renewed - Evidence established respondent wanted employment to continue and started process for renewing permit - Authority accepted failure to initiate renewal earlier not solely (or perhaps at all) respondent's responsibility - No employment obligation breached - No constructive dismissal - Length of service 11 months 11 days - Chef
Result: Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted in part (Arrears of wages and holiday pay) ; Arrears of Wages ($4,947.67)(Salary) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($2,272.60)(Annual and statutory holidays) ; Costs reserved
McLennan v Arthur Barnett Ltd
7 Sep 2006, P Cheyne, CA 135/06, (7 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Alleged employment summarily terminated by phone message left by manager - Respondent claimed message did not amount to dismissal - Expired written employment agreement continued to apply - Applicant engaged as either part-time or flexi-time employee, not casual - Conflict developed between applicant and new employee ("D") - No reason to be critical of way respondent dealt with conflict - Authority did not accept applicant's claim respondent wanted her gone having appointed D - Applicant's request for leave without pay granted but plans changed and available to work - Respondent entitled to stick to original arrangement whether or not replacement worker organised - Applicant received message after being absent two months on leave and then sick - Message stated manager would let her know if work available - Manager claimed also said applicant should contact him when knew university timetable - Applicant argued while no actual words of dismissal, termination should be inferred from circumstances - Authority did not accept message amounted to termination of employment at respondent's initiative - On balance, manager's evidence of message preferred - Applicant to initiate discussion so parties could agree schedule of hours - Applicant's belief dismissed communicated to respondent - Reply stated applicant still employed but wrongly described her as casual employee - Prompt acceptance of respondent's invitation for further discussion could have easily sorted mistaken label - Parties needed to discuss applicant's availability for work in new year, as mentioned before applicant went on leave - No dismissal - Even if grievance, little scope for substantial remedies - Applicant's stress related illness not attributed to any wrongful action by respondent and stress claim explicitly not pursued - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant not paid for four statutory holidays while on annual leave because of mistaken view of nature of employment - Statutory days fell on otherwise working days for applicant - Arrears due and owing - Length of service seven years - Shop employee
Result: Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted (Arrears of holiday pay) ; Arrears of holiday pay (4 days)(Quantum to be determined by parties) ; Costs reserved
Morrissey v Ofsoske
4 Apr 2007, V Campbell, AA 101/07, (4 pages)
ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant based calculation for arrears claim on premise agreed to salary and accommodation benefit with respondent - In support of claim relied on document alleged was confirmation of terms and conditions of employment - Respondent denied document employment agreement - Claimed gave applicant template sharemilker’s agreement after discussing possibility of such arrangement - Document unsigned and important aspects not completed including remuneration clause - Also contained matters not appearing to be related to employment - Authority found more likely than not document provided as example of what might be available if applicant was to undertake sharemilking contract - Did not constitute employment agreement - Authority satisfied agreed to weekly rate and free accommodation -Applicant not paid time and ½ for working public holidays or given alternative holidays - Applicant took annual leave in advance - Overpaid as did not complete 12 months service - Money due and owing, less overpayment - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant claimed entitled to four days off each month - Preferred respondent's evidence that agreed to three days off - Took off all days to which entitled - Counterclaim - Claimed applicant owed money for taking livestock - No dispute applicant purchased calves - Sale and purchase agreement not part of employment agreement therefore outside Authority's jurisdiction
Result: Application granted (Arrears of holiday pay)($771.39 less overpayment to $529.67) ; Application dismissed (Arrears of wages, Counterclaim) ; Costs to lie where they fall
Rongonui & Anor v P Te Whata & Anor
15 Feb 2007, P Cheyne, CA 17/07, (6 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Identity of employer - Applicant signed "agreement to contract" - Employer named on contract not Maori incorporation, as claimed by respondent, or other legal entity - Respondents clearly controlled shearing gang, and signed agreement - Applicant entered legal relationship with respondents trading as employer named in contract - Authority made order identifying respondents by full names - JURISDICTION - Whether employee or independent contractor - Although contract in language of contract for services and negated several usual incidents of employment, applicant not working on own account - Had no control over work conditions - Work integral to respondents business - Real nature of relationship employment - Employee - Applicant made submissions about fairness of terms and circumstances in contract - If had found relationship not employment, s6 Minors' Contract Act 1969 would have applied since applicant young (16 years old) - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant claimed threatened with violence - Left job after sworn at but agreed to return - Parties later argued about getting sheep into shed - Applicant said not his job - Told to leave and not come back - Initiative for termination of employment came from respondent - Words used could constitute dismissal and did so in circumstances - Nothing about respondent's response could have constituted actions of fair and reasonable employer - Unjustified dismissal - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Given unjustified dismissal finding unnecessary to deal with disadvantage claim - ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Arrears of holiday pay due and owing - Respondent made "charitable tax" deductions from applicant's wages - Deducted wages due and owing, unless respondent could account for it by proving payment made to Inland Revenue - Length of service two weeks - Shearing gang presser
Result: Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc $2,000 ; Arrears of wages ($239.42)(charitable tax deduction) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($68.41) ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
