Breach of Contract - Employment Relations Act 2000
Balfour v Central Hawkes Bay Support and Counselling Service Inc
31 Jul 2007, P R Stapp, WA 107/07, (6 pages)
JURISDICTION - RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Applicant claimed respondent breached confidentiality provision in record of settlement by supplying documents to Police under search warrant - Alleged respondent did not act in good faith when it did not disclose certain documents to him before settlement - Applicant raised personal grievance after received discovery of documents seized by Police - Respondent challenged Authority's jurisdiction to proceed with allegations and claimed any personal grievance raised out of time - Applicant no longer employee of respondent and none of his terms and conditions of employment survived end of relationship, save for terms of settlement as matter of contract - Settlement between parties full and final - Applicant could not succeed with claim of personal grievance and breach of good faith - Applicant aware other matters could come to light after final settlement and took that risk - Questions about search warrant's accuracy and breaches of privacy not matters within Authority's jurisdiction - BREACH OF CONTRACT - GOOD FAITH - Also claimed respondent acted dishonestly and colluded with ACC and Police to deceive him - ACC brought fraud proceedings against applicant - Applicant sought costs of successful defence in District Court - Submitted cost directly caused by respondent keeping and giving copy of settlement and other documents to ACC under search warrant, and documents should have been destroyed or kept secure - Appeared respondent tried to keep information on applicant confidential, while leaving clear impression with ACC and Police in possession of some documents - Respondent's president told truth at time, nothing less that what would be expected - President had to comply with search warrant and Authority accepted she did what she believed she had to do in circumstances - Defence accepted - Record of settlement open to scrutiny for enforcement and to meet legal requirements even though confidential - Without wilful and deliberate conduct in being party to ACC's enforcement role, respondent could not be held liable for costs between applicant and ACC in form of damages - Claims for breach of confidentiality and good faith dismissed
Result:
Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
back to top
Corneal v General Distributors Ltd t/a Woolworths at Gull
24 May 2007, G J Wood, WA 83/07, (13 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Applicant alleged required stress leave as result of manager's actions - Applicant felt picked on, but manager simply trying to ensure high standards met - Meeting arranged to work on parties' relationship - Any potential grievances applicant may have had at time in effect resolved - Issues over staffing and reporting - Applicant put in extra hours, to detriment of health, but negative impact on profitability - Disciplinary investigation begun but applicant went on sick leave and meeting delayed - Raised issue of stress and respondent sought further medical information - While on sick leave occasionally attended work - Respondent discovered money missing - Next day, applicant rang to say had money and forgot to bank it - Suspended and disciplinary meeting scheduled - Applicant alleged bullying and discrimination, and claimed this explained respondent's concerns - Respondent indicated would proceed with disciplinary investigation and if applicant wished only to deal with issues by correspondence could miss opportunity to explain - Stated would investigate applicant's complaints separately, and added new allegation applicant took stock without paying - Applicant denied allegations and declined to provide further details of her complaints as requested - Respondent concluded applicant negligent, breached company policy and actions serious misconduct - Applicant's diabetes most likely explanation for times failed to remember to things as required, especially as combined with depression - Not inherently unfair for employer to closely manage staff - Applicant not treated unfairly in relation to stress, and not victim of bullying or discrimination - Summary dismissal for misplacing money substantively justified - Stock issue provided further reason for loss of trust and confidence - Applicant chose not to be involved in disciplinary process - Respondent entitled to carry through its disciplinary procedures and could not be held responsible for failure to have all relevant material before it - Dismissal justified - No unjustified disadvantage - ARREARS OF WAGES - RECOVERY OF MONIES - Applicant went to work while on sick leave - While respondent provided cover for applicant and possible she did not work full shift, refusal to pay did not reflect well on it - Applicant entitled to five days pay - Arrears to be offset against speeding fines incurred by applicant - Balance to be paid to appropriate party - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Respondent concerned abut state applicant's uniform returned in - Applicant not required to pay for new uniform - Counterclaim dismissed - Manager
Result:
Application dismissed (Personal grievance) ; Application granted (Arrears of wages, recovery of monies) ; Counterclaim dismissed ; Costs reserved
back to top
Lane Group Ltd v Burrow
18 Dec 2007, J Crichton, CA 152/07, (4 pages)
BREACH OF CONTRACT - No appearance by respondent - Respondent resigned without giving appropriate notice - Applicant sought to recover amount equal to value of notice period - Forfeiture provided for in employment agreement and employee handbook - Authority satisfied respondent's behaviour covered by provisions relied on by applicant - Respondent also failed to return uniform and had unpaid shop account - Damages owing - Store person
Result:
Application granted ; Damages ($1,800)(Notice period) ; ($163.02)(Uniform) ; ($43)(Unpaid account) ; Costs to lie where they fall ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
back to top
Lane Group Ltd v Parsons
18 Dec 2007, J Crichton, CA 153/07, (4 pages)
BREACH OF CONTRACT - No appearance by respondent - Respondent resigned without giving appropriate notice - Applicant sought to recover amount equal to value of notice period - Forfeiture provided for in employment agreement and employee handbook - Authority satisfied respondent's behaviour covered by provisions relied on by applicant - Respondent also failed to return uniform - Damages owing - Store person
Result:
Application granted ; Damages ($1,920)(Notice period) ; ($73.25)(Uniform) ; Costs to lie where they fall ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
back to top
Webster v Bush and Anor t/a Queenstown Physiotherapy
25 Jul 2007, J Crichton, CA 85/07, (5 pages)
ARREARS OF WAGES - Respondents provided cheque in full settlement of arrears claim when filed statement in reply - Payment forwarded to applicant - Matter resolved - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Counterclaim - Respondents alleged early termination of applicant's employment caused them loss - Sought damages equivalent to one week's notice - Applicant claimed only given part time hours, not full time as expected - Left employment as unable to meet obligations at reduced level of income - Respondents accepted employment agreement contained provisions which did not accord with nature of relationship they desired to have with applicant - However, submitted applicant would have been given more hours if she asked - Also, offered her more hours when she resigned - Counterclaim not made out - Unfair and unjust to further penalise applicant by requiring her to pay missing week's notice - Physiotherapist
Result:
Orders accordingly ; Counterclaim dismissed ; No order for costs
