News
Please forgive me - I didn't know what I was saying
It is often sobering for us to look back upon things that we have done earlier in our lives - and often quite embarrassing for us to realise that, with the benefit of hindsight, we might have made some decisions differently.
Anyone who has recently seen a photograph of themselves from the 1980s probably knows what I'm talking about. Looking back, it seems that the Flock of Seagulls haircuts - and women's outfits with enormous shoulder pads - were big mistakes. How we wish we could go back and remedy our own misfortune!
The concept of wondrous hindsight is not unknown in employment law. From time to time, a case arises where a person realises that he or she should have made a previous decision differently - and regrets that life has been altered in a way which they would have preferred to avoid.
The recent decision in Jackson v Farmers Trading Company Limited (Unreported, Employment Relations Authority, Wellington, 24 March 2003) provides an example of this phenomenon.
Mr Jackson had been employed by Farmers in 2000. Sometime around May 2000 he suffered an injury at work. Mr Jackson said that he received little or no support from his employer at this time, and that he became stressed as a consequence - to the point that his personal life and mental wellbeing were detrimentally affected.
In July 2001 Mr Jackson removed about $5,000 from his employer's safe - and travelled to Sydney. When he arrived in Australia he turned himself into the police, and returned a few days later to New Zealand where he was charged with theft as a servant.
There followed some negotiations involving both the police, Mr Jackson and Farmers. Amongst other things, those discussions resulted in an agreement in August 2001 in which Mr Jackson agreed to resign from his job, and settle any grievances that he might have against his employer.
An issue arose following this agreement. Mr Jackson said that he understood that his employer would support his efforts to obtain diversion - to allow him to avoid a criminal record. Ultimately, however, diversion was declined, and Mr Jackson was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within 12 months.
Mr Jackson brought a claim in the Employment Relations Authority in the late part of 2002 - about a year after he had agreed to settle his grievances with his employer. He obtained medical evidence which suggested that he was incapacitated at the time that he entered into the August 2001 settlement and, as a result, he sought to avoid the agreement.
Mr Jackson's evidence suggested that he was in a state of "psychological fugue" at the time at which he agreed to settle his claims with his employer.
The term "fugue" is used to describe a musical composition which is comprised of a variety of different melodies (Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody would be a good example). Applied to psychology, the term describes a person whose personality may change markedly from time to time, leading virtually to a state of confusion. It is an unusual condition, which provided the inspiration for David Lynch's movie Lost Highway.
In essence, Mr Jackson said that he was so overcome by his fugue at the relevant time that his thinking was not clear and that the decision that he made (to settle his claim with his employer) was, in hindsight, wrong. He sought to have the Authority set aside the settlement - and to allow him to bring grievances against his former employer alleging unjustified dismissal and disadvantage.
The Authority had little sympathy for Mr Jackson's application. It concluded that his medical evidence was not certain as to his condition - and indicated only that, in hindsight, a decision made in late 2001 could have been wrong for him.
Significantly, the Authority observed that at the time he entered the settlement, Mr Jackson was advised by a lawyer. It concluded that the presence of a solicitor addressed any risk of incapacity.
The Authority also considered the merits of Mr Jackson's claim and expressed the view that, even if successful, the extent to which his own actions had contributed towards his circumstances would have been likely to justify a significant reduction of remedies.
Taking all of these matters into account, the Authority declined Mr Jackson's application.
It is not unusual for us to regret decisions which we have made in the heat of the moment. This case serves to indicate, however, that it will generally be difficult for a person to avoid a settlement agreement where a person has been properly advised - and in the absence of compelling medical evidence to establish incapacity.
Psychological fugue or not, Mr Jackson was said to have known what he was doing.
