| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 101 |
| Determination date | 23 May 2012 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | L Ryder ; D Kilpatrick |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Canterbury Education Services Society Ltd v Gillam |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Determination of preliminary matter - Respondent sought to strike out applicant's claim respondent had breached confidentiality obligations under parties' employment agreement and settlement agreements (SA") - Respondent claimed matter tort action and Authority lacked jurisdiction - Authority found had jurisdiction to determine applicant's claim relating to alleged breach of first and second SAs - COUNTERCLAIM - COMPLIANCE ORDER - Respondent claimed applicant had breached parties' SAs and sought order applicant comply with SAs - Authority found had jurisdiction to determine respondent's counterclaim but did not have jurisdiction to determine respondent's application for compliance order relating to second SA as second SA not entered into under s149 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Application dismissed - Financial Services Manager" |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as financial services manager. Determination of preliminary matter. Respondent sought to strike out applicant's claim respondent had breached confidentiality obligations under parties' employment agreement and settlement agreements (SA"). Respondent claimed matter tort action and Authority lacked jurisdiction. Respondent claimed parties' SAs excluded Authority jurisdiction to determine matter. Applicant claimed respondent had breached agreed confidentiality obligations. Parties agreed applicant would leave employment after respondent restructured applicant's position. Respondent claimed parties' second SA resolved any alleged confidentiality breaches and matter could not be heard by Authority. If strike out application successful, respondent claimed applicant had breached parties' settlement agreements ("SA") and sought order applicant comply with SAs.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;JURISDICTION: Applicant's alleged breach of confidence not tort action as related to alleged contractual breaches. Not disputed parties in employment relationship and applicant's claims founded in employment relationship. Parties' first SA included potentially conflicting clauses. Prevailing clause of parties' first SA established parties did not intend applicant did not have right to pursue future claim relating to enforceability of first SA. Authority not precluded by first SA from determining matter. Authority could impose penalty if breach of parties' SA established. Authority had jurisdiction to determine applicant's claim relating to alleged breach of first SA. Second SA did not extinguish respondent's ongoing confidentiality obligations and Authority had jurisdiction to determine matter if respondent breached second SA.;COUNTERCLAIM - COMPLIANCE ORDER: Authority had jurisdiction to determine respondent's counterclaim but did not have jurisdiction to determine respondent's application for compliance order relating to second SA as second SA not entered into under s149 Employment Relations Act 2000." |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Compliance Order |
| Statutes | ERA s5;ERA s137(1)(iii);ERA s149;ERA s149(4);ERA s151;ERA s161(1)(b);ERA s161(1)(r) |
| Cases Cited | BDM Grange Ltd v Parker [2005] ERNZ 343 ; [2006] 1 NZLR 353;Kennedy v Rolling Thunder Motor Company Ltd (2010) 8 NZELR 232;Kerr v Associated Aviation (Wellington) Ltd [2005] ERNZ 632;Mayne v Polychem Marketing Ltd [2012] NZEMPC 60;Pain Management Systems (NZ) Ltd v McCallum unreported, Panckhurst J, 14 August 2001, CP72/01;Wade v Hume Pack-N-Cool Ltd [2012] NZEMPC 64;Waikato Rugby Union v New Zealand Rugby Football Union Inc [2002] 1 ERNZ 752 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_101.pdf [pdf 49 KB] |