Dead man wins employment case
A dead man has grabbed a legal win against his former employer from beyond the grave.
Ricky Osgood was in the process of taking a case against Palmerston North business Wright Tanks when he died in September in Palmerston North.
Dean Eaton has been charged with, and pleaded not guilty to, murdering Osgood.
Osgood had a hearing before the Employment Relations Authority in February, arguing he should be able to take legal action against Wright Tanks despite signing a full and final settlement.
Authority member Michel Ryan granted the clearance late last month, saying she was not convinced the agreement was a true deal between the two parties.
Osgood worked for Wright Tanks for about seven months in 2018.
Although he was employed to drive and operate a hiab truck – a truck and crane combined in one vehicle – he mainly did labouring work as the truck was still being built.
Wright Tank’s director Andrew Wright told Osgood in September 2018 there was no more work for him, because the hiab’s crane was unfit for purpose, and offered to pay a $1500 settlement, which was accepted.
Osgood met Wright later that month and signed a document entitled ‘‘record of settlement’’, which said he was being made redundant and the $1500 was a ‘‘full and final settlement’’.
But the settlement did not meet proper legal requirements, Ryan said.
Firstly, the settlement was not authorised by a mediator, although that was not a deal breaker.
The real issue was Wright Tanks proving the settlement was made after the business and Osgood had reached an accord and were happy with the deal.
Osgood was not given the agreement to view until he signed it, giving him no chance to take advice about if it was acceptable, Ryan said.
He also became upset when told there would be no work for him and felt he had to go along with what Wright said.
Wright said he offered the payment to keep Osgood ‘‘out of trouble’’ while he looked for a new job.
He did not seek legal advice on the offer either.
Ryan said she was not satisfied the arrangement was a true settlement.
Although it was not an important fact in relation to the settlement issue, Ryan noted Osgood was contractually and legally entitled to get $3397 when he left the job.