Casual Employee Dismissed from Engagement of Work
- Business Central
- Oct 28, 2024
- 3 min read
Updated: Nov 5, 2024
Mr Rodgers claimed J.S. Wright Contracting Limited (Wright Contracting) unjustifiably dismissed him from his role as a truck driver and failed to pay him his wages for work completed. Wright Contracting did not participate in the investigation meeting, although director and sole shareholder Mr Wright provided some information away from it. Before the determination, the company went into liquidation.
The employment relationship commenced when Mr Rodgers saw a Facebook post asking for someone willing to do floating work. The parties discussed about five weeks’ work of truck driving from Christchurch to Hamilton. Mr Rodgers acknowledged work was uncertain between locations. After this, he would meet Mr Wright in Queenstown at the end of the floating stint to discuss future working arrangements.
Mr Rodgers started this journey around 20 September 2023 with a stop-off midway in Wellington. During the trip, they added on an extra stop in Auckland. The parties discussed work, perks and payment before the relationship rapidly deteriorated. Mr Wright called Mr Rodgers saying he was letting him go around 26 September 2023. He was flown home at the end of the day on 27 September 2023.
Wright Contracting claimed it did not employ Mr Rodgers but engaged him as a contractor. The Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) assessed Mr Rodgers’ status and found the real nature of the relationship was one of employment. It considered whether the employment was permanent, fixed term or casual. The Authority found the arrangement best fit the characteristics for casual employment. Mr Rodgers drove the truck where and when required, as and when he was available. He did not know where he would be going for the full period of work, which was subject to contingencies like location and Wright Contracting’s contract requirements. The employment ending earlier was in line with the conditions the parties agreed on.
The Authority then considered whether Wright Contracting unjustifiably dismissed Mr Rodgers.
Mr Wright claimed he did not dismiss Mr Rodgers; he said only that he had no more work for him. However, at that time, Mr Rodgers had accepted the Auckland engagement. Mr Wright’s call cut that short. He ended the engagement prematurely and told Mr Rodgers he was letting him go.
Although the engagement had some variables in that it would only have lasted as long as it took to drive to Auckland, Mr Rodgers was entitled to be treated fairly during that engagement, including if it was to end prematurely, before driving to Auckland. Wright Contracting did not follow a fair process before telling Mr Rodgers his employment had ended.
Once an engagement is in place for a casual employee, an employer must act in a fair and reasonable way before deciding to dismiss, including having a good reason and after following a fair process. If a casual employee is dismissed during an agreed engagement without substantive and procedural justification, they could succeed in a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. Wright Contracting unjustifiably dismissed Mr Rodgers.
Mr Rodgers sought a penalty for Wright Contracting making an unlawful deduction by withholding his wages. The Authority considered Mr Rodgers had performed work in good faith and went without payment for a significant time. It ordered Wright Contracting to pay a penalty of $3,000, with three quarters going to Mr Rodgers. Wright Contracting was also ordered to pay Mr Rodgers one week’s wages totalling $1,550, owed holiday pay, a further week of wages totalling $1,550, compensation of $10,000 and costs of $1,500.
Rodgers v J.S. Wright Contracting (In Liquidation) [[2024] NZERA 274: 09/05/24; L Vincent]
