| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 502 |
| Determination date | 28 November 2011 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | C McLorinan ; M Ryan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Fugro PMS PtY Ltd & Pavement Services Ltd v Tinkler |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance with settlement agreement – Respondent claimed signed settlement under duress – Respondent alleged to have improperly obtained money from applicant’s accounts – Applicant advised respondent to obtain legal advice but respondent attended disciplinary meetings without legal representation – Applicant managing director (“Y”) claimed provided respondent with settlement as believed option respondent wanted – Respondent claimed Y said if settlement not signed police could become involved which could lead to respondent going to prison – Y denied threatened respondent with police action – Authority found threat of criminal prosecution would have been improper means of inducing respondent to agree to settlement – Found disciplinary process followed by applicant supported Y’s explanation that applicant was treating matter as internal disciplinary matter rather than criminal prosecution – Found sufficient time before mediator signed agreement for respondent to have reconsidered position and taken legal advice – Found correspondence between parties subsequent to certification of settlement did not support respondent having taken steps to avoid terms of settlement – Found settlement not void due to duress – Compliance ordered – General Manager |
| Result | Compliance ordered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Compliance Order |
| Statutes | ERA s149 |
| Cases Cited | Marsh v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [1996] 2 ERNZ 266;Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614;Pharmacy Care Systems Ltd v Attorney-General (2004) 2 NZCCLR 187 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_502.pdf [pdf 47 KB] |