This site demands javascript

skip to main content
Sheridan County School District #2 > Bonding Agreements Nz

Bonding Agreements Nz

Company representatives assessed the applicants` ability to follow the work plan and their ability to work safely under pressure and then concluded that they were fit to play their role based on their results. For successful applicants, the employment contracts agreed to weekly deductions on employees` wages to cover commercial tests and other related costs. When an employer is considering recouping a worker`s costs or engaging, it is appropriate to carefully consider whether the worker will benefit from the agreement, beyond the worker`s labour market benefit. If this is not the case, and in particular if the costs are normally borne by the employer or have been carried out in the past, cost coverage or borrowing may be contrary to the EPA. The employment contracts offered to successful candidates found that tech 5 employee agreed to deduct $125 per week from the employee`s salary for these expenses until $6,650 had been paid. Tech 5 made deductions on employees` wages. In addition, staff agreed that certain amounts may be recovered by them. These include the costs of commercial testing when they have not worked for three years for Tech 5 (borrowing clauses). Employment contracts must contain certain clauses. Additional clauses should be adopted to meet the needs of the organization and the worker. Employment contracts are the conditions of employment.

Every worker must have a written employment contract. In abc Developmental Learning Centres (NZ) Ltd v. O`Meara (Employment Relations Authority, May 21, 2012), a teacher was ordered to repay $11,987.67 when she left half a two-year loan term. The facts of this case are that ABC agreed to support the employee`s study of an end-of-study degree in early childhood education – by paying a fee and continuing to employ her during her studies, and while she had no practical experience. This decision is expected to have a significant impact on the trade industry, as it has defined the criteria for a bonus and could eventually be included in a labour agreement. It also provided an indication of what can be allowed in the context of cost recovery such as airfares and the instruments needed to play the role of recruiting and employing migrants. However, please note that in the Philippines, different rules apply as to what is expected of an employer (without recovery) to ensure the safety of Filipino migrant workers, and these rules are managed by the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Any employer wishing to recruit Filipino workers or adapt their contracts/recoveries in accordance with the guidelines given in this recent case should also ensure that these deductions/modifications are approved by the POEA before they are implemented. A recent labour court case, the Labour Inspector v Tech 5 Recruitment Limited, shows that attempting to recover these costs from workers could be contrary to the Wage Protection Act 1983 (EPA). The case also shows that caution should be exercised with respect to worker engagement (i.e., a worker is required to pay a sum if he or she does not remain employed for a certain period of time). If a loan agreement does not benefit the worker, it may be incompatible with the EPA.

A new labour court case serves as a warning to employers that recovering training, recruitment and equipment costs may be illegal. Some employers strive to ensure their return on investment in training workers by associating them with the company for some time after their training.