Who is the employer at Gloriavale?
Dave Scott
Seems to me that Chief Judge Christina Inglis is inviting through counsel for those in charge at Gloriavale to 'do the right thing' and come on board with what she believes to be important matters of equity and good conscience. Hopefully the Overseeing Shepherd and leadership of Gloriavale's ship of morality has not entirely sailed.
As Chief Judge Christina Inglis describes it:
[183] Where does all of this lead? Generally speaking it would be regrettable for a worker’s claim for employment status to be defeated simply because they have proceeded against, for example, one corporate entity within a complex corporate structure only to find that the evidence discloses that another entity within the same structure was the true employer. I have reservations about whether the Court’s hands would be tied to the pleadings in such circumstances. No counsel suggested that they would be but nor did any counsel tackle the pleadings point directly. In the circumstances I consider it appropriate to adjourn determination of the employer identity issue. In particular I wish to provide an opportunity for counsel to be heard on the issue I have identified, including (if the point is contested) the nature and scope of the Court’s powers under ss 189 (equity and good conscience jurisdiction) and 221 (conferring power on the Court at any stage of proceedings of its own motion or on the application of any party to make directions, including joinder and the amendment or waiver of defects in proceedings, and disposing of matters before it according to substantial merits and equities).
Photo by David Dibert on Unsplash.