| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 102A/08 |
| Hearing date | 21 Apr 2008 |
| Determination date | 08 July 2008 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | K Burson ; J Douglas |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Curtis v Computer Engineering Ltd |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance with settlement agreement claimed made with presence of parties’ representatives – Respondent argued as terms of settlement not signed and certified not enforceable – Parties agreed would have record of settlement in written agreement and would arrange “sign off” by mediator – Subsequently written agreement prepared by applicant’s solicitors and sent to respondent contained additional term not agreed upon at meeting – Respondent questioned inclusion of new term and refused to sign agreement and make verbally agreed payments – Applicant argued sign off for enforcement purposes only and parties already entered full and final settlement – Respondent argued believed settlement subject to receiving and approving terms in written document – Respondent disputed new term because sought computer files that would otherwise be deleted or not returned – Applicant accepted additional term not enforceable but claimed respondent could not use term to resile from other substantive terms already agreed upon – Applicant claimed intention of parties that subsequent written confirmation and sign off for enforcement purposes only – Authority found evidence clear respondent expected to enter settlement agreement at meeting – Authority found following suspension of applicant, respondent anticipated some legal difficulties – Respondent concerned applicant’s subsequent employer may possess files – Authority found respondent actually disappointed with applicant’s work and regretted agreeing to exit package with settlement sum – Authority found real agreement made at meeting through careful process – Found clear applicant gave no outward indication settlement agreement tentative or subject to further advice – Authority for purposes of compliance order categorised agreement as either an employment agreement (“EA”) or a variation to an EA – Authority distinguished present case from previous cases – Found evidence in present case showed intention to be bound without execution of written agreement – Compliance ordered – Penalty declined – 10.6 percent interest appropriate |
| Result | Compliance ordered ; Interest (10.6%) ; Penalty declined ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Compliance Order |
| Statutes | ERA s149;ERA s137;ERA s137(1)(a)(i);ERA s137(1)(a)(iii);ERA s138;ERA s151;ERA s161(1)(r) |
| Cases Cited | Curtis v Engineering Ltd unreported, R Arthur, 18 March 2008, AA 102/08;Abernethy v Dynea New Zealand Ltd [2007] ERNZ 462;Kerr v Associated Aviation (Wellington) Ltd [2005] 1 ERNZ 632;Shaffer v Gisborne Boys' High School Board of Trustees [1995] 1 ERNZ 94;Majestic Horse Floats Ltd v Goninon [1993] 1 ERNZ 323;Graham v Crestline Ltd [2006] ERNZ 848;PBO v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 102a_08.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |