However, the next day, the worker’s mission was over. The night shift supervisor explained: “We didn’t need that many workers…so I had to tell (the staffing firm) to send two less people. I decided I didn’t need (the worker) and one more. .”

Control over the daily tasks of the worker

A key issue was determining who actually controlled the worker’s daily activities. The worker testified: “I reported directly to (supervisor) at (company) on a daily basis and it was (company) management that introduced, supervised, trained and instructed me.”

The production manager at the client firm provided evidence of their role with the temporary staff, stating that they had ensured health and safety complianceassigned tasks and supervised work. The manager noted that if the requirements were not met, they would “simply advise (the staffing company) that the person is no longer required”.

The evidence showed that the client company maintained substantial oversight of the temporary workers’ activities, including the provision of personal protective equipment and job training.

The decision WAS

The ERA looked at previous cases to determine whether the client company exercised sufficient control to be considered a controlling third party under the Employment Relations Act 2000. They referred to the case of Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Limited, which noted: “(the workers) operated with no degree of autonomy Rather (the employer) exercised a significant degree of direction and control over (the workers’) day-to-day work – what, when, where, how and by whom”.