KEY POINTS:
When couples fall out over household chores, they often end up in the divorce courts.
But one Auckland couple's domestic dispute has gone all the way to the Employment Relations Authority over claims the woman was employed to the tune of $35,000 a year to keep house.
The
case has highlighted the issue of how couples juggle working life with homes and children - and who holds the purse strings in modern relationships.
The ERA heard evidence that Jaewyn Williams was "employed" by car part importer Mount Shop Ltd, a company part-owned by Williams' de-facto partner, James Toia.
Williams was paid a gross salary of $35,000 a year between July 2005 and March 2007 in "customer services".
But the authority heard that the "salary" appeared to be just another form of housekeeping money.
According to evidence heard by the ERA, Toia worked long hours building up the business, sometimes seven days a week. He was able to do that because of the assistance of Williams who acted as the "home-maker", looking after their house and four children.
In July 2005 Toia gave Williams an individual employment agreement, paying her a salary in lieu of the housekeeping allowance she had been paid previously.
"It was a requirement that, out of that salary payment, she was to feed all the family and to clothe the four children and herself. She was also required to pay the house insurance and the Telecom accounts. In short... the $35,000 covered the balance of the weekly family living and housekeeping costs."
According to the determination a "salary" payment due on January 31 last year was stopped, as was the payment for the following week. Williams protested and a further two payments were made.
Williams left the family home on March 1 last year. She admitted there had been difficulties in the personal relationship, but said she left the home because of the failures to pay.
She later went to the ERA with a grievance over her alleged dismissal by Mount Shop Ltd and a complaint that the company had failed to pay salary and holiday pay due to her.
In the end, the ERA decided Williams had not carried out the activities set out in the employment agreement - developing customer relations, answering customer phone calls and representing the company.
"It is abundantly clear that the 'employment' to which the document purports to relate bears no resemblance to the reality of the parties' arrangements," said ERA member R. A. Monaghan.
The authority found Williams was not an employee of MSL and since there was no employment relationship between the parties it had no jurisdiction to address any of the matters raised.
Williams' lawyer Colin Bright said Williams was disappointed with the result and he believed the case held wider significance.
James Toia said he had no time to discuss the decision with the media.