Almost immediately after the implementation of the settlement agreement, the professor took to Twitter, where he made the following statements in that order: A recent arbitration decision from Nova Scotia, Canada, Acadia University v. Acadia University Faculty Association, 2019 CanLII 47957 (ON LA), is a warning story for employees who receive comparisons after termination. The decision emphasizes that the employer cannot be required to honour its obligation to pay under the transaction contract if it does not meet the commitment to keep the terms of a transaction strictly confidential. In addition, this decision is a warning to employees active on social networks that their use of social media may be monitored by the employer or brought to the employer`s attention after billing. Any statement by staff on social media that violates the terms of a transaction could seriously compromise their right to a payment in accordance with a transaction contract. The University of Acadia has terminated the hiring of a professor for substantive reasons. The university`s faculties association filed a complaint challenging the professor`s resignation. Voluntary mediation was convened and the complaint was resolved. Comparative protocols performed by the university, faculty association and professor contained the following terms: Acadia also allows employers to comfort the fact that arbitrators and judges probably do not turn a blind eye when an employee violates a commitment to respect the confidentiality of the terms of a transaction contract. As the Acadia Adjudicator noted, transaction agreements are „sacrosanct“ in the context of work, usually because their disclosure can lead to encouraging other complaints, including those that are not substantial. The same is true in the employment context where disclosure of billing conditions can lead to the promoting of other measures, including those that do not.
As a result, the Warrant Officer will likely ensure that staff members who disclose the terms of a transaction agreement, which is specific or inaccurate, despite the existence of a confidentiality provision, face harsh consequences, such as. B.dem the loss of the payment due to them. Workers who no longer provide such information, even if they have been warned, are most at risk of such a consequence. The applicant sued his former employer, Gulliver Schools, after his employment was not extended. The parties resolved the dispute through a general release and settlement agreement that required payments of $10,000 in additional payments, $80,000 in compensation and US$60,000 in legal fees. The billing terms contained a detailed confidentiality provision and allowed the payment of $80,000 to be cancelled if it was breached. The confidentiality provision prohibited direct or indirect discussion of the „existence or terms“ of the transaction, with the exception of the applicant`s lawyers, professional counsel or spouse. Four days after the transaction agreement was signed, the student posted on her Facebook page: „Mom and Papa Snay won Gulliver`s trial.
Gulliver is now officially paying for my holiday in Europe this summer. [Expletive deleted]. This Facebook comment reached about 1,200 facebook friends of his daughter, many of whom were current or former Gulliver students. The defendant refused to pay compensation of 80,000 $US. After a court initially ruled that the complainant`s statements to his daughter regarding the transaction or his Facebook message constituted a breach of the confidentiality provision, a Florida appeals court overturned the verdict. The common impulse to share personal data on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter could inspire other former complainants or their friends and family to boast of a recent legal victory.