The worker commenced legal proceedings against the employer for non-payment, as agreed in comparison, and the employer argued that the remaining amounts were no longer due because the worker had breached the confidentiality clause. In response to the #MeToo movement, a number of states have passed legislation to prohibit employers from using confidentiality clauses in transaction agreements that shed light on allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of harassment. These changes are an indication of the impact that public policies can have on the law. In addition, these developments underline the importance of learning about the evolution of norms and statutes that can influence the structuring of colonies (and sometimes the final decision on whether or not to obtain rights). As noted above, the agreement also provided that Mr. L. could apply for future positions. There was evidence that he had done so no less than four times, all without success. Sky City submitted that there had been no infringement because the clause only meant what it said, namely that Mr. L was able to apply for future positions and that he had done so.
Sky City submitted that Mr. L. had only been able to complete a job application and that, at that time, Sky City`s engagement had ended. The Labour Tribunal rejected this argument and indicated that the clause would have been totally unnecessary if it had been. It does not follow, however, that Mr. L. was successful in filing an application. The Labour Tribunal found that the inclusion of the “no” to the personnel issue in the staff computer system, which Sky City recognized as a factor in the unsuccessful subsequent applications of Mr.
L. to the job, was also contrary to the labour agreement. The Supreme Court held that the employer should continue to make payments to the worker in accordance with COT3, since the confidentiality clause was not a real condition of the agreement (this is not the substantial benefit the employer obtained in connection with the transaction). Finally something that has nothing to do with COVID-19! In a recent high court case between Duchy Farm Kennels Ltd/Steels, an employee violated the confidentiality rules of his comparative agreement (COT3) reconciled with CASA by informing a former colleague of the terms of the transaction, including the total amount and rates. The Supreme Court held that this offence did not allow the employer to pay the remaining transaction amounts set out in the agreement. In this case, he points out that the breach of a general rule of confidentiality in the context of a transaction is probably not considered a condition by the courts and indicates how the clause could be formulated as a condition of the agreement in order to increase the likelihood that the employer will obtain the protection they wish.