News
I could be so good for you
One of the highlights of television in the 1980s was the popular British show Minder. The hero of the show was Arthur Daley - a dubious character whose normal business attire featured a full-length rain coat (probably with the English equivalent of Friday Flash rolled up in one of the inside pockets).
Arthur Daley was famous for running a business empire which consisted largely of morally dubious enterprises - and was equally famous for providing rather extraordinary excuses for escaping any element of responsibility. In fact, it was Mr Daley's penchant for rather unbelievable explanations that led him to require the services of a "minder".
If a recent decision of the Employment Relations Authority is anything to go by, it seems that there are some employers in New Zealand who would aspire to be a little bit like Arthur Daley in their business dealings. The applicant in Ms A v Cosimo Rullo aka Tony Rullo t/a Casablanca & Ors (Unreported, Employment Relations Authority, Auckland, 26 November 2001) provided her services to a massage parlour in Auckland. She said that she had been employed by the massage parlour and that she had been unjustifiably dismissed from her job. She sought compensation for distress and humiliation at being terminated from her employment, and also sought payment of certain statutory entitlements that she said she had been denied.
One of the curious features of the case was the difficulty which confronted Ms A in identifying - and then tracking down her employer.
Ms A initially named a Mr Rullo as her employer. He engaged solicitors who sought further information about Ms A's employment problem before responding to her. After this hopeful beginning, however, things became more difficult for Ms A and her solicitor. It appears that after a short while, Mr Rullo's solicitors became unavailable to discuss Ms A's problem, and did not return telephone calls. After a period Mr Rullo's solicitors said that they no longer acted for him. Curiously, the next step occurred when the Employment Relations Authority received an unsigned hand-written note informing it that Mr Rullo no longer had any involvement with the massage parlour, and that he had moved on without leaving a contact telephone number or forwarding address.
Ms A's solicitor responded to this rather frustrating position by naming a number of different individuals and entities, each of which was said potentially to be her employer. Another person, Mr Rizzi, eventually engaged in correspondence with the Employment Relations Authority, and attempted to clarify the position. Mr Rizzi said that Ms A had been retained by Club Casanova Limited by way of an independent contractor arrangement. Mr Rizzi denied ever having any involvement in Club Casanova Limited.
Finally, after two of the named respondents had been removed from the list of potential employers, the matter proceeded to a hearing before the Authority. There was no appearance for any of the named respondents - but the Authority made a decision to proceed with its investigation in an effort to ensure that Ms A was not obstructed or disadvantaged by the inability or unwillingness of the respondents to take part in the process.
Ms A gave evidence about the task that she performed at the massage parlour. The Authority reached the view on the basis of this evidence that Ms A was employed by one or more of the respondents (rather than being an independent contractor). The Authority accepted that Ms A had been dismissed from her employment without warning and that she had not been given an opportunity to present her perspective on the events that led to her dismissal. It found that, in the course of her work, Ms A had accumulated a significant amount of annual leave - and that she had regularly worked on public holidays (although the Authority said that it was impossible to calculate with any certainty how many times this had occurred).
In the event, the Authority ordered Mr Rullo to pay Ms A almost $7,000 in accrued holiday pay and just over $4,000 to compensate her in respect of her unjustified dismissal. Mr Rullo was also ordered to pay Ms A $1,500 as a contribution towards her legal costs.
Some readers may find it amusing that a person employed in this type of industry could rely so effectively upon the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. Others may be amused by the number of apparent Arthur Daleyesque steps taken by the respondents in what might appear to be an attempt to avoid responsibility in this case.
What this decision illustrates, however, is that New Zealand's employment legislation exists to provide protection to all employees - irrespective of the nature of the industry in which they are employed. The fact that justice was ultimately done in this case (despite the attempts made by the respondents to avoid the imposition of liability) demonstrates the effectiveness of the legislation, and the relative speed with which an outcome may be achieved - even in the most difficult of circumstances.
As Arthur Daley himself would say, the Employment Relations Act allowed this employee to "cop a little earner".
