| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 12 |
| Hearing date | 7 Sep 2011 |
| Determination date | 31 January 2012 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | I Matheson ; A Maelzer |
| Location | New Plymouth |
| Parties | Honeyfield v Reid Holdings Ltd |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant sought damages for breach of settlement agreement and breach of duty surviving employment by respondent – Applicant dismissed for alleged breach of lawful instruction from respondent principal (“O”) – Applicant signed settlement agreement after dismissal meeting which included confidentiality clause – O informed other employees about applicant’s dismissal but added additional reasons that were not raised with applicant – O set out views on personal grievance case in trade magazine article – O did not name applicant in article but employer was named and inaccurate and hurtful comments were made about applicant – O discussed views of applicant’s termination with applicant’s new employer and gave it copy of evidence that had been prepared by third party for investigation meeting – Authority found O’s statements about applicant’s termination to other employees made before settlement agreement – Found term that employer should not for all time make any comment that may impact negatively on ex-employee’s work without precedent in employment law – Found any surviving duty would not go so far as to provide compensatory damages to applicant – Found no evidence that applicant’s reputation damaged – No damages – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalties for O’s alleged breaches of employment agreement and term of settlement – Found penalty in regard to breach of employment agreement raised out of time – Found confidentiality clause in settlement agreement binding on both parties – Found O breached settlement agreement by referring to what happened in disciplinary meetings in trade magazine article – Found although O did not identify applicant small number of people would have known who was being referred to – $1,000 penalty appropriate – COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance orders in respect of breach of settlement agreement – Respondent ordered to comply with terms of settlement agreement and not to discuss agreement and discussions leading up to it with anyone other than own professional advisers – Respondent ordered not to publish any evidence in any way related to reasons allegedly given to staff by O after applicant’s dismissal |
| Result | Application granted (penalty)(compliance order) ; Penalty ($1,000)(Payable to applicant) ; Compliance ordered ; Application dismissed (breach of contract) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Breach of Contract |
| Statutes | ERA s134;ERA s149;ERA s149(4) |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_12.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |