ERA: Key dispute centred on whether this was casual or full-time employment
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case where a worker argued he was unjustifiably dismissed after just nine days of work.
The worker claimed he had been promised full-time employment but ended up without work after raising concerns about travel distance and seeking clarity about his working arrangements.
The case explored crucial workplace issues including the nature of employment relationships, what constitutes full-time versus casual work, and the importance of clear communication about employment terms.
The dispute began when the worker responded to a job advertisement on Sky Kiwi seeking a carpenter for commercial building work on the North Shore.
The ad specified requirements including basic tools, a Site Safety card, and a vehicle, promising wages "much higher than minimum wage of NZ" and listing the position as "full time."
After connecting through phone and WeChat messages, the worker and the construction services company agreed on a rate of $23 per hour.
No employment agreement was provided. The worker started with four days of work at an Auckland CBD site building door frames before being assigned to a Takanini location.
Issues emerged at the Takanini site when the worker and two colleagues couldn't complete the sign-in process. They didn't have basic company information needed for registration, and weren't told they needed to register under a different company name that the employer supplied workers to.
Living on the North Shore, the worker found the Takanini commute demanding. Through WeChat, he messaged his employer: "It costs more than $10 in gas and two hours." He requested either higher pay or work locations closer to home.
The employer initially seemed responsive, messaging: "Next Tuesday or Wednesday North Shore will have a vacancy available."
However, when this work didn't materialise, the relationship began to deteriorate. The worker expressed his frustration: "If there was work then we can work together but do not lie to me."
A key dispute centred on whether this was casual or full-time employment. While the employer said they operated as a labour hire company offering both employee and contractor options, the ERA found the arrangement pointed to regular employment.
The ERA noted: "An objective observer would have seen the reference to 'Full Time' without condition as meaning employment involving regular work of at least 30 hours a week, likely more."
The decision highlighted communication failures, stating: "[The employer] failed to adequately set up [the worker] and the other workers' commencement at the Takanini site. [The worker's] English was not the primary cause of the difficulties. [The worker] had not been told the name of the company which their labour was to be provided to."
The ERA determined that while there wasn't an unjustified dismissal, the worker had suffered unjustified disadvantage.
The Authority explained: "Having concluded that the agreement between the parties was for full time work, [the employer] failed to provide [the worker] with work on Monday 26 to Wednesday 28 June 2023 or pay him for those days."
The outcome included compensation of $1,000 plus lost wages of $838.12. In its decision, the ERA noted: "[The worker] was frustrated by having to head out to Takanini, go through an induction process, only to be unable to complete the process. He was further upset at not having work provided to him with an expectation he could find other work at short notice and then not being given work he saw as promised."
The ERA's findings emphasised the importance of clear communication about employment terms and proper documentation in workplace relationships. Costs were reserved, with parties encouraged to resolve the matter themselves.
