Posted on: Dec 11, 2013
|
Any agreement regarding time in lieu to be taken for working over agreed hours should be written into the employment agreement. The agreement should also make it clear whether the time owed will (or will not) be paid out on the termination of employment. If that is not done an employer may face an unexpected claim on termination of the employee’s employment.
In Jackson v TSL Nelson Ltd [2013] NZERA Christchurch 179, Mr Jackson brought a claim for $19,975.56 for unpaid time in lieu. The Employment Relations Authority found Mr Jackson was employed on a salary to work 40 hours per week and had an unwritten understanding with the employer that he would be paid for hours worked over and above the 40 hours. The understanding was referred to in emails between the parties before Mr Jackson was employed. The Authority awarded the amount sought. It noted that Mr Jackson’s employment agreement provided the terms in the agreement “represented the entire terms and conditions that operate between the parties with respect to the employee’s employment” and that ordinarily such a clause would be a powerful argument against implying a term into an employment agreement. However, in Mr Jackson’s case the Authority said because the agreement had another employee’s name on it (not Mr Jackson’s name) and had not been signed by Mr Jackson it would be dangerous to assume that Mr Jackson considered himself bound by it. |
Disclaimer
This article, and any information contained on our website is necessarily brief and general in nature, and should not be substituted for professional advice. You should always seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters addressed.
Posted on: Dec 11, 2013
Employing family members can lead to problems as the case noted below shows. Family members should always be given written employment agreements and be paid at least the minimum wage.
In Meroiti v Lindale Lodge Ltd [2013] NZERA Wellington 104, Graeme was employed by his brother John as manager of the Lindale Motor Lodge. The agreement (which appeared to be unwritten) was that Graeme would live in and be paid $350 per week in the hand after tax had been deducted. Graeme was required to work hours as required. The brothers fell out and John summarily dismissed Graeme. Graeme issued proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority and claimed the difference between what he had been paid and the minimum wage, unpaid holiday pay, three months’ lost wages following the dismissal and compensation.
The Authority said because Graeme was an employee he was entitled to the minimum wage and holiday pay and it found Graeme had been unjustifiably dismissed. John did not appear at the Authority investigation to challenge Graeme’s claims. The Authority awarded Graeme gross unpaid wages of $86,935.25, holiday pay of $7,702.80, $17,745 for lost wages after dismissal and $6,000 as compensation for hurt and humiliation.
Disclaimer
This article, and any information contained on our website is necessarily brief and general in nature, and should not be substituted for professional advice. You should always seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters addressed.
