A worker has been ordered to stop talking publicly about her former employer. Stock image / 123RF
A worker has been ordered to stop talking publicly about her former employer. Stock image / 123RF
A gagging order has been placed on an aggrieved worker who publicly bad-mouthed her former employer.
The worker, whose name and details are suppressed, lodged proceedings with the Employment Relations Authority in February, claiming she was dismissed after being unjustifiably disadvantaged.
The employer denied the claims, and then lodged a counterclaim alleging the worker had breached provisions in her employment agreement.
It also sought orders prohibiting her from publishing the company's confidential information or making disparaging comments about it.
A worker has been ordered to stop talking publicly about her former employer. Stock image / 123RF
The company declined to comment when approached by media earlier this month about a separate case involving the worker and the matter before the ERA.
The company's lawyer then wrote to the worker, asking her to stop making further comments.
Several days later an article appeared on a news website which referred to the proceedings and the evidence filed by each party.
The worker has since been publishing material on a widely-used social media platform. It was followed by another news article about the company and referred to the counterclaim and the application for a non-publication order.
The worker's posts referred to various legal proceedings, to matters before the Authority for investigation, and to personnel of the company.
Authority Member Eleanor Robinson said the news articles made a number of comments about the integrity of the company and referred to factual matters which the Authority would in due course need to investigate.
The social media posts contained "adverse comments" about events involving the worker when she was employed by the company, and to personnel who were likely to be key witnesses in the Authority's investigation.
The ERA has now issued an interim non-publication order which prevents publication of the names of the parties and any information which might lead to their identification until the substantive matter is heard.
Robinson said in her decision on March 28 that a key principle was that of open justice.
She said the worker had made "significant comment" in the media at a time when the sub judice rule applied, which limited public comment before or during an investigation.
"This is to prevent improper pressure on a party and the risk that such statements could pressure, or could be perceived to improperly influence, the Authority in reaching its decisions," Robinson said.
The worker submitted that she had freedom to make the comments under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The ERA said that while it recognised freedom of expression, it was subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law.
Robinson said prior public comment could harm a fair process.
