A recent case demonstrates the need to be clear
on what is due to or owing from an employee before you agree to a negotiated
exit.
In this particular case, the employment
relationship ended part way through the first year on negotiated terms entered
into at mediation.
It had been the employer’s practice to pay
wages monthly, 2 weeks in advance and 2 weeks in arrears. It paid the employee
on the 15th of the last month of employment, and this included pay
to the end of the month. The employment relationship then formally ended
following mediation on the 25th. Payments had therefore already been
made for the 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th
(days the employee was not employed).
Instead of accounting for this in the
negotiation (and ensuring that the agreed terms of settlement incorporated the
overpayment), the employer sought to make a deduction when paying out the
employee’s final annual leave entitlement.
The Employment Relations Authority held that
this approach was incorrect, and inconsistent with the agreed terms of
settlement.
The most relevant term of the settlement was
that the employer would provide the employee with “all salary and annual leave
that may be owing up to and including the termination date”. This meant the
employee was entitled to receive the full balance of annual leave owing and the
employer would breach the settlement agreement if this did not happen.
Because the employee had been with the company
less than 12 months, he was entitled to 8% of all wages earned up to and
including the last day (the 25th) less any annual leave payments
made in advance. In this case, the total amounted to $6,853.81.
The overpayment of 4 days
amounted to $2,307.69, and the employer lost this too, despite having provision
in the individual employment agreement to make deductions for overpayments.
This was because a further term of the settlement agreement stated “The parties
acknowledge that, except as set out within the settlement agreement, no other
money whatsoever (including… salary…) is due or owing from either party to the
other.”
The ERA held that the employer
should have known, when it signed the agreement, that 4 days salary were owing
from the employee to the employer. By agreeing to this further term within the
settlement, it waived its right to deduct any amount for the overpayment.
Alan Knowsley
Employment Lawyer Wellington
No comments:
Post a Comment