Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Grenside v Gaskin
30 Apr 2007, D Asher, WA 67/07, (7 pages)
BREACH OF CONTRACT - Matter dealt with on papers - No appearance for respondent - Other than statement in reply no submissions filed by respondent - Applicant alleged respondent breached confidentiality of mediated settlement and sought damages and penalty - After parties settlement reached at mediation, applicant applied for taxi licence - Respondent emailed LTNZ referencing his dismissal of applicant, how much it cost him in "unfair dismissal costs" and made other allegations - As result of email LTNZ halted application - LTNZ obliged to make inquiries on applicant's fitness to hold licence - Because other allegations contested and irrelevant to present application, non-publication of allegations ordered - Respondent breached obligation to keep fact of proceedings, settlement and its terms confidential - Breaches gratuitous, deliberate, and amounted to serious breach of applicant's employment agreement - "Unfair dismissal costs" not reference to legal costs and close to amount agreed in settlement - Respondent claimed properly exercised right to file objection under public notification - Claim rejected since allegations not relevant to purpose of objection and had nothing to do with applicant's character/fitness to hold licence - Other prohibited allegations may have proved relevant and could have been advanced without unnecessarily breaching confidentiality obligations - However, respondent clearly not prepared to appear in Authority - Damages - Applicant claimed breach affected ongoing employment in taxi industry - Claim unsupported by evidence - Reasonable to expect some evidence of impact email had on application for licence and re-employment experiences - Unconscionable for applicant to recover damages out of proportion to actual loss - Damages not established - PENALTY - Respondent largely failed to defend very serious claim - Respondent well-placed to communicate concerns without reporting dismissal and amount it cost him - Comments unrelated to application and clearly breached undertakings as to confidentiality - Due to distress caused applicant awarded half of penalty - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant awarded fair and reasonable costs of $1,800
Result: Application granted (Breach of contract) ; Application dismissed (Breach of contract) ; Penalty ($4,000)($2,000 payable to Crown)($2,000 payable to applicant) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,800)
Isherwood v Apex Car Rentals Ltd
12 Oct 2006, H Doyle, CA 148/06, (4 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with Record of Settlement - Respondent claimed complied with settlement - Settlement clause provided once amounts, including salary paid, no further payments due - Applicant claimed "salary" definition wider than ordinary salary and included additional holiday and lieu entitlements - Amount owed unclear in settlement - Respondent sent copies of settlement to applicant to sign along with "without prejudice" letter - Letter stated would receive three days salary -Series of without prejudice communications regarding settling matter - Without prejudice protection continued to attach to such communications after settlement of an employment relationship problem - However, consideration of letter necessary to determine whether agreement reached - Authority risked being misled on amount to be paid under clause - Terms of settlement clearly accepted - Matter not one of interpretation - Letter clear about payment and sent before applicant signed settlement - Respondent entitled, in absence of rejection, counter offer, or other response, to rely on settlement on basis of payments in letter - Payment of additional entitlements not provided for in letter - Respondent paid three days salary - Terms of settlement complied with - Not entitled to compliance order - PENALTY - Counterclaim - Respondent alleged applicant in breach of good faith by claiming on settled matter and that claim misled Authority - Exemplary damages, penalties and full solicitor client costs initially sought - Damages no longer sought - Issue whether duty of good faith in s4(4) Employment Relations Act 2000 applied to matter - No submissions heard and no finding made on issue since applicant claimed did not know of letter - Unlikely would have found breach warranting penalty - All remaining terms of settlement prohibited from publication
Result: Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Thanakornmanaporn v Boonyaphat Company Ltd
8 Nov 2006, RA Monaghan, AA 340/06, (7 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Whether dismissed or resigned - Respondent recruited applicant from Thailand on fixed term agreement and retained his passport, although would temporarily return it on request - Before fixed term expired applicant informed respondent offered another job - Also requested passport - Manager did not return it as thought wanted passport so could leave immediately - Applicant had not said intended leaving early - Insufficient grounds for manager's conclusion - Both parties came to link return of passport with termination of employment - Applicant felt no choice but to leave because wanted passport - Even if passport sought to pursue employment elsewhere, did not in itself mean would leave current employment early - Applicant did not resign or voluntarily leave employment - Although respondent not seeking to dismiss, actions amounted to initiative for termination of employment - Applicant dismissed - Since based on misunderstanding, dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Lost wages limited to period of fixed term - Authority unconvinced loss mitigated and lost wages adjusted to reflect that - Minimal compensation as already unhappy at work and intended to leave soon - PENALTY - Claim for breach of obligation to provide opportunity to obtain advice when entered employment relationship raised out of time - Breach of good faith not raised expressly before investigation meeting - Not appropriate to raise it in submissions and not treated as part of employment relationship problem - Applicant sought penalty for payment in Thai baht rather than New Zealand dollars - Parties had agreed part of applicant's salary would be remitted directly to his Thai account - No breach of employment agreement in respect of payment in baht and no penalty to be imposed - However, requirement for written consent to pay wages into bank account not met - Breach did not call for penalty, but respondent to amend its employment agreements - Employment agreement silent on deductions made for accommodation, food and utilities - Penalty warranted but mitigating factors as applicant orally agreed to deductions and respondent recognised mistakes and prepared to address them - ARREARS OF WAGES - Letter from respondent to Immigration Service before applicant employed stated hourly rate for position - However, letter merely account from employer to third party, not evidence of later agreement between parties - No grounds to order repayment of deductions as subject to oral agreement - Correct accounting of PAYE between respondent and IRD - If applicant wrongly taxed matter to address with IRD - Both parties' statements of evidence filed late - Start of investigation meeting delayed so applicant and advocate could read respondent's statement - Advocate advised Authority ready to proceed and not appropriate for him to allege in submissions not given enough time to prepare - Length of service one year ten months - Chef
Result: Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,115.38) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Application granted in part (Penalty) ; Penalty ($1,000)(Payable to Crown) ; Application dismissed (Arrears of wages) ; Costs reserved
Uelese & Uelese v Conference of Samoan Adventist Church
28 Aug 2006, L Robinson, AA 275/06, (3 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicants sought compliance with record of settlement - Authority's file documented considerable difficulty in obtaining respondent's co-operation - Authority minute directed investigation meeting to proceed as consequence of respondent's failure to take any steps - No appearance by respondent - Authority satisfied respondent had not complied with record of settlement - No evidence of excuse or justification for failure - Compliance ordered - Interest 9 percent - Leave reserved for applicants to bring further application to Authority in event of continuing non-compliance - PENALTY - On balance of probabilities, case deserved penalty - Penalty necessary to encourage observance of objects of Employment Relations Act 2000 - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicants sought full costs of $1,681 - Costs reasonable - Entirely appropriate applicants be reimbursed full costs
Result: Compliance ordered ; Interest (9%) ; Penalty ($2,000)($1,000 payable to Crown, $1,000 payable to applicants) ; Costs in favour of applicants ($1,681.25)
Watson v Fibre Logistics Ltd
20 Oct 2006, RA Monaghan, AA 323/06, (3 pages)
ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant sought wages and holiday pay due on termination - Dismissed after charged with offences involving misappropriation of funds from employee social club - Dismissal letter stated wage entitlements "frozen" pending outcome of misappropriation issue - Respondent claimed awaited outcome of trial in District Court - Respondent failed to meet timetable set by Authority for providing confirmation whether amounts in dispute, but subsequently advised amounts due - Authority set further timetable to allow respondent to address remaining claims - In light of delaying tactics to date, Authority warned would issue determination without hearing further from respondent - Nothing further heard from respondent after contacted by Authority - Unacceptable - Proceedings determined without hearing further from respondent - No appearance for respondent - Wages and holiday pay due and owing - Interest 7.7 percent - PENALTY - Respondent failed to comply with Wages Protection Act 1983 by not paying wages - Failure also breached employment agreement - Liable to penalty under s134 Employment Relations Act 2000 ("ERA") - Deliberately withheld wages and flouted law - Given at least two of breaches based on same conduct not appropriate to order penalties in respect of each breach - Rather, conduct treated as single breach - Deliberate nature of breach, aggravated by subsequent delaying tactics, meant more than nominal penalty called for - Authority not addressed on issue whether respondent in breach of good faith obligations or whether penalty should be awarded under s4A ERA - Possibility of breach merely noted - If applicant guilty of charges would be called to account in appropriate place - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Some, but not all, of applicant's modest legal fees bore directly on Authority proceedings - Entitled to contribution to costs of $50 plus filing fee
Result: Arrears of wages ($2,115.38) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($3,077.89) ; Interest (7.7 %) ; Penalty ($3,000)(Payable to Crown) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($50) ; Disbursements ($70)(Filing fee)
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
