| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Auckland 142 |
| Hearing date | 6 - 8 April 2016 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 12 May 2016 |
| Member | Robin Arthur |
| Representation | J Rooney, C Walker ; G Service, F Ryff |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Metropolitan Glass and Glazing Ltd v Meiring |
| Summary | RESTRAINT OF TRADE – Whether restraint of trade clause (“ROT”) enforceable – COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance with employment agreement (“EA”) – PENALTY – GOOD FAITH – Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s breach of good faith |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;RESTRAINT OF TRADE: Order for non-publication for applicant and third party’s financial and client information. Parties unable to agree oral variation to ROT since ROT more restrictive than original. No consideration given for nationwide ROT. Not reasonable for applicant to assume that respondent accepted new ROT. Nationwide ROT not enforceable.;COMPLIANCE ORDER: Respondent did not breach obligation to protect applicant’s confidential information and intellectual property. Application for compliance dismissed.;PENALTY – GOOD FAITH: Respondent more than likely deliberately withheld information about prospect of working for competitor from applicant, hindering applicant’s opportunity to assess possible effect on interests. If applicant aware of respondent’s prospects of working for competitor, applicant likely would not have given respondent bonus. Applicant breached duty of good faith. Breach deliberate and sustained throughout notice period. Breach risked serious harm to applicant’s interests. No remorse shown. Need for deterrence. $8,000 penalty appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (penalty – good faith) ; Penalty ($8,000)(payable to applicant) ; Application dismissed (compliance order) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Compliance Order |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s63A;ERA s126(2);ERA s162;ERA s174E;ERA Second Schedule cl10 |
| Cases Cited | Bell v Level Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161 (HL);Broadcasting Corp of NZ v Nielson (1988) 2 NZELC 96,040 (HC);Designlink Ltd t/a Rodney Wayne Hairdressing Whangaparoa v Raymond EC Auckland AC24/06, 1 May 2006;Fagotti v Acme Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 135 ; Fuel Espresso v Hsieh [2007] NZCA 58, [2007] 2 NZLR 651;Gallagher Group Ltd v Walley [1999] 1 ERNZ 490 (CA);H v A Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 92, [2014] ERNZ 38;Hally Labels Ltd v Powell [2011] NZEmpC 43, (2011) 8 NZELR 532;Metropolitan Glass & Glazing Ltd v Meiring [2015] NZERA Auckland 369;Murray v Attorney-General [2002] 1 ERNZ 184 (EmpC);Nottingham University v Fishel [2000] EWHC 221 (QB), [2000] ICR 1462;NZ Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Inc v Mana Coach Services Ltd [2011] NZCA 571, [2012] 1 NZLR 753;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 (EmpC);Taylors Floorcoverings & Furnishings Ltd v Brown [2012] NZERA Christchurch 218;Warwick Henderson Gallery Ltd v Weston [2006] 2 NZLR 145 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 24 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Auckland_142.pdf [pdf 327 KB] |