| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 79 |
| Hearing date | 18 Jan 2011 |
| Determination date | 13 May 2011 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | I Matheson ; K Pascoe |
| Location | New Plymouth |
| Parties | Honeyfield v Reid Holdings Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether applicant precluded from bring personal grievance claims because of mediated settlement agreement purporting to be in full and final settlement of all employment relationship problems - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged and dismissed due to breach of statutory and common law duties of good faith – Applicant also claimed was duty under settlement agreement, or implied term of agreement that survived dismissal, to give accurate reasons for dismissal and that did not occur - Respondent claimed applicant precluded from bringing claims because entered of settlement agreement - Applicant claimed not precluded from bringing claims because facts giving rise to grievances were not known to her at time signed settlement agreement – Claimed had lack of knowledge over way another worker involved in dispute which led to her dismissal was treated - Claimed dismissed because of her dismissal of another employee, who was allegedly bringing claim against respondent, yet not told employee would have been leaving soon anyway, and that any potential claim had been settled – Claimed respondent’s principal made comments to staff about her subsequent to her dismissal, which she obviously could not have known about at time entered settlement agreement - Authority found all of applicant’s claims about events leading up to and including dismissal based on same grounds, whether couched as personal grievances, or breaches of good faith or contract, and should therefore be assessed together – Found settlement agreement purported to be in full and final settlement of any and all claims relating to applicant’s employment and its termination – Applicant acknowledged accepted money in full and final settlement and understood entitled to seek independent advice – Found if employees able to take advice before entering into mediated settlements must therefore be taken to be aware could rely on procedures such as disclosure of documents and questioning of witnesses to bring out previously unknown facts – Found such parties must be taken to have agreed to terms of settlement in knowledge of those possibilities, and therefore deliberately foregone them – Found issue of subsequent statements made to staff more difficult – Found applicant not claiming subsequent statements constituted real reason for dismissal – Found therefore as statements made post employment could not form grounds for personal grievance for unjustified dismissal – Applicant’s claims dismissed - However, found alternative argument that claim may be made for damages for breach of settlement agreement or breach of duty surviving employment could be pursued, as obviously post dated settlement agreement and would require evidence on oath to determine - Restaurant supervisor |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | Contractual Remedies Act 1979 s7;ERA s149 |
| Cases Cited | Marlow v Yorkshire New Zealand Ltd [2000] 1 ERNZ 206 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_79.pdf [pdf 19 KB] |