When the parties reach a full and final settlement agreement to terminate the employment relationship, most employers feel that the matter is settled and that the worker has waived his right to refer the matter to the CCMA. In addition, in a November 2019 labour court proceeding (Higgins/Dept. of Foreign Affairs, UDD 1969), the complainant had signed a “general authorization and agreement” in which she explicitly stated to the employer that “any liability, damage or means of redress, known or unknown, related to her employment … or the cessation of this activity or any other act or event… The applicant agreed that she had professional legal advice prior to the signing of the document. She also confirmed that she had received and kept a “separation package” (we are not told how much). The Court found that, on the face of it, the worker had legal advice and, in exchange for waiving her right of appeal, accepted and maintained a valuable consideration. Your appeal was dismissed. While these cases are comforting to employers, some situations have been raised in the past. These can occur, for example, if the worker did not receive independent specialized advice prior to signing or if the agreement is not sufficiently clear on what was specifically regulated by the agreement.

For employers, there are a few key elements to be included in all employee comparison situations, such as: the former client of course argued that the purpose of the agreement was simply to settle the legal fees dispute and that at the time of the agreement, the $70 million negligence claim was unknown, so that it could not have been included in the transaction. In October 2007, in Point West London Ltd/Mivan Ltd2, the parties settled a dispute over the outstanding invoices. At that time, both parties were aware of persistent problems with façade cladding and heating and cooling systems in a given dwelling, although they were considered relatively minor at that time. Despite these ongoing issues, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on arrears of payment, which contained a full and definitive comparison clause.