{"id":322,"date":"2017-06-01T04:53:58","date_gmt":"2017-05-31T16:53:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.monsellierlaw.com\/?p=68"},"modified":"2022-03-07T13:57:04","modified_gmt":"2022-03-07T00:57:04","slug":"what-happened-to-the-contract","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.monsellierlaw.com\/what-happened-to-the-contract\/","title":{"rendered":"What happened to the contract?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Come on New Zealander\u2019s, let\u2019s get the basics right, please.<\/p>\n

Whenever I meet clients, whether it\u2019s an employer or an employee, my starting question is always the same \u2013 \u201cwhat does the contract say?\u201d <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Yet, no matter how many times I tell employers to get all their paperwork in order, it never ceases to amaze me how many businesses employ staff without providing the most basic of employment contracts. To me, the need to issue an employment contract is rule 101, but as confirmed in last weeks\u2019 Employment Relations Authority decisions, it seems that many of us do not take this legal requirement seriously.<\/p>\n

In Flannagan v PMR Holdings Ltd<\/strong><\/em>, an employer\u2019s repeated attempts at trying to improve an employee\u2019s performance by issuing one warning after another, fell on deaf ears and had little sway with the Authority. Even though Mr F was a nightmare employee (continually late for the morning shift, messy, untidy, moody, smoked in the premises and generally unhygienic), and the warnings may well have been justified, the employer failed to convince the Authority that it acted fairly when it said, \u2018enough was enough\u2019 and dismissed him.<\/p>\n

Under normal circumstances, a dismissal after repeated warnings would seem the logical next step. So, why did Mr F\u2019s claim for unjustified dismissal succeed?<\/p>\n

Well, in short \u2013 he had no contract of employment and this was a fundamental breach of a statutory obligation. Despite trying to convince the Authority that Mr F \u201cwas simply a housekeeper working for his keep\u201d and no contract was required, the Authority did not agree. It looked at the factual matrix surrounding the relationship and determined that a \u201cmutuality of obligation\u201d<\/strong> was evident. There was an understanding that:<\/p>\n