Good Faith - 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
Sharma v Medictronix New Zealand Ltd
18 Sep 2007, L Robinson, AA 291/07, (7 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - No appearance for respondent - Applicant's evidence unchallenged - Parties agreed applicant could take three months leave - Contrary to agreement, applicant not paid while on leave - On return told things at respondent "not good' and no staff paid - Respondent agreed to make some payment to applicant and said would contact him about resuming duties - Applicant not invited to resume duties - When contacted, respondent provided back dated advice making him redundant - Purported redundancy a sham - No consultation - Breached employment agreement and statutory requirement of good faith - Dismissal unjustified - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant entitled to commission not paid during employment - Interest 10 percent - GOOD FAITH - PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty for respondent's failure to act in good faith - Respondent had instilled in applicant expectation would resume duties - Attempted to revise situation by making him redundant from commencement of discussions with him - Conduct demonstratively dishonest, in bad faith, and undermined applicant's employment agreement - Penalty warranted to underscore policy objectives of Employment Relations Act 2000 and denounce respondent's conduct - Sales and marketing manager
Result:
Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($6,057.70) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Arrears of wages ($10,451.36) ; Interest (10%) ; Penalty ($3,000)(Payable to Crown) ; No order for costs
back to top
Turner v Pacifica Seafoods (Christchurch) Ltd
25 May 2007, H Doyle, CA 57/07, (16 pages)
DISPUTE - GOOD FAITH - Entitlement to notice of termination and redundancy payment - Employment status - Respondent argued applicant's status changed to casual during employment due to downturn in business - Employment agreement stated days of work "as required" but also contained provisions inconsistent with casual employment - Applicant did not recall restructuring process and or consider himself casual employee - Regular work pattern and clear expectation of ongoing employment - Applicant permanent employee - Employment terminated one day after advised business sold - Respondent claimed sale unplanned and complete confidentiality required for commercial reasons - Notice given to applicant not reasonable, however, Authority accepted applicant not entitled to monetary compensation as on unpaid leave due to injury - Applicant also sought redundancy compensation - Respondent argued no contractual entitlement to payment - Authority unable to fix new terms of employment - However, as applicant's redundancy entitlement assessed on mistaken basis he was casual employee, in good faith, respondent should reassess entitlements - PENALTY - In circumstances where respondent unable to give employees advance warning of sale, discussion about entitlements even more important in terms of good faith process - However, degree of seriousness required to warrant penalty not reached - Good faith issues regarding absence of consultation and notice should form part of respondent's reassessment of entitlements - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Except for first week ACC compensation payable by employer, no payments received under Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 to be taken into account when calculating holiday pay - Public holidays that fell during unpaid leave would not have been otherwise working day as applicant not available to work - Calculation referred to Labour Inspector - Leave reserved on issues relating to payment of sick leave
Result:
Questions answered ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
