Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Crawford v M Torok Holdings Ltd t/a The Sharing Shed
3 Oct 2006, D King, AA 309/06, (4 pages)
JURISDICTION - Whether employee or independent contractor - Agreement between parties stated relationship not one of employment - Income commission based although applicant sometimes received daily rate - Measure of control in terms of hours significant - Staff could not take leave as pleased and were reprimanded for lateness or failure to ring in sick - Applicant could not assign her rights and Authority doubtful respondent would have permitted her to arrange replacement without first checking person suitable - Applicant could not set prices so unable to control income - Applicant had to comply with respondent's policies and procedures and attend review meetings if required - Applicant an employee - Hairdresser
Result: Application granted ; Costs reserved
Hogan v Graham & Keys Ltd
21 Sep 2006, V Campbell, AA 302/06, (10 pages)
JURISDICTION - Applicant claimed became employee when became shareholder and director of respondent - Respondent argued not employee but director/shareholder who received monthly drawings - Applicant aware not in receipt of "salary" - Intention of all shareholder/directors they would work and share equally in profits of business - Relationship between directors one of equals, with equal rights to decision making - Applicant worked autonomously - Applicant's work integral to business but not determinative as would expect this if director - Tax status not conclusive - Applicant had degree of responsibility in investment and management of business and opportunity to profit from its sound management - Informal day to day operating relationship at respondent in nature of partnership and not employment - Applicant not an employee - No jurisdiction - Architect
Result: Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
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
