'The contract does not specify the work to be achieved, only the hours to be worked,' tribunal rules
An employer has been ordered by the Disputes Tribunal to pay the wages of an assistant accountant despite filing a counterclaim for $30,000 worth of damage.
The assistant accountant was hired indirectly as a temporary worker in July until the end of September. He was extended until December 23, but was eventually terminated by the end of November due to issues with his work.
The employer said the many of the accounts handled by the employee were left unpaid, while also duplicating payments on other accounts.
He also made incorrect journal entries, entered duplicate foreign exchange contracts that turned out to be unfavourable, and failed to complete bank reconciliations.
The employer estimated that its losses from the employee's actions and omissions hit over $30,000.
Reaching the Disputes Tribunal
The employment agency that referred the assistant accountant to the employer raised to the Disputes Tribunal that the employer didn't pay the last five invoices and it should pay a total of $14,000.97.
But the employer has filed a counterclaim of $30,000 in damages from the losses it incurred because of the employee's actions.
The employer argued that the assistant accountant did not do the work that was set for him, claiming that he may have been engaged in personal study rather than any work at all during his last two weeks.
The employer further claimed that employment agency misrepresented the employee's abilities, and that the employee's curriculum vitae was misleading.
The agency, however, cited in its contract that it "does not warrant the suitability of applicants," adding that it's the employer's responsibility to whether engage or accept an applicant recommended by the agency.
Tribunal's decision
The Disputes Tribunal sided with the employment agency in the dispute, noting in its decision how the employer chose to extend the employee's contract even if some of the problems were already emerging.
"I am therefore unable to conclude that [the employer] was induced to engage [the employee] by any misrepresentation or misleading conduct on the part of the [employment agency]," the decision said.
Citing the contract, the tribunal also ruled that the company is still obligated to pay the employee regardless of issues with the quality of efficiency of the work.
"Given that [the employee] was attending work, his failure to accomplish specified tasks does not excuse [the employer] from paying [the agency] under the terms of their agreement, at least without supporting evidence that he was solely engaged in non-work activities for a particular time," the tribunal said.
"The contract does not specify the work to be achieved, only the hours to be worked."
The tribunal dismissed the counterclaim from the employer, and instead ordered it to pay the invoiced total of $14,000.97.
