| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 284/07 |
| Hearing date | 11 Jul 2007 |
| Determination date | 13 September 2007 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | A Welch ; S Alexander |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Pilbrow v Alexander & Co Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Alleged applicant agreed to terminate employment as term of negotiated settlement – Applicant appeared to assert settlement entered into unfairly due to undue influence or duress – Respondent handled confidential material during course of work – Respondent claimed applicant had difficulty maintaining good relationships with co-workers due to negative attitude – During performance review applicant critical of respondent’s performance – Applicant resented respondent's proposal to restructure – Respondent discovered high volume of personal emails on applicant’s computer – Emails contained derogatory comments about respondent and indicated applicant looking for other employment – Respondent met with applicant and indicated had lost trust and suggested suspension until computer fully examined – Parties had without prejudice discussion where possibility of resignation raised – Applicant given document which amounted to settlement agreement – Respondent claimed applicant signed agreement and confirmed intention to sign agreement – Applicant claimed felt embarrassed when shown emails and denied having read email policy – Claimed told result of actions would be immediate suspension followed by investigation where dismissal probable – Applicant sought time to seek legal advice – Applicant allowed time to obtain legal advice but suspension effective immediately – Applicant claimed no option but to sign – Claimed unsure whether still employee once suspended and intimidated by threat of probable dismissal – Test for undue influence very high – Factors cited in Adams v Alliance Textiles [1992] 1 ERNZ 982 important – Respondent must prove applicant provided informed consent to settlement – Applicant not young inexperienced person whose will easily overborne – Applicant unhappy working for respondent and had been actively seeking other employment – Not unreasonable for respondent to suggest suspension – Authority satisfied applicant not denied opportunity to obtain legal advice – Applicant’s claim that did not understand position once suspended disingenuous – Even if Authority had found applicant unlawfully coerced into signing agreement, applicant’s contribution would have resulted in reduction of remedies to amount in agreement – Application dismissed - Personal assistant |
| Abstract | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Cases Cited | Adams v Alliance Textiles [1992] 1 ERNZ 982;McHale v Open Polytechnic [1993] 1 ERNZ 186 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 284_07.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |