Amazon granted non-disclosure injunction against former employee

Amazon has been granted an injunction ordering a former employee to comply with the terms of his employment contract regarding the non-disclosure and non-use of confidential documents.

The employee, Mr Tejan-Kella, had been an area manager for Amazon. He got into a dispute with the company and issued a claim in the Employment Tribunal. He was then dismissed on the basis that he had no right to work in the UK.

He then sought to amend his employment claim to include an allegation of race discrimination.

While he had been an area manager, he had chaired a disciplinary panel regarding an allegation against another employee; as a result, he was given a toxicology report which showed that the employee had tested positive for cannabis use, which led to that employee’s dismissal.

Amazon produced evidence that Tejan-Kella had disclosed confidential documents, including the toxicology report, to the Employment Tribunal while making his case. It contended that he had not provided any basis for its relevance in the tribunal proceedings, and it strongly objected to that disclosure.

It had sought to obtain undertakings from Tejan-Kella that he comply with his employment contract, which provided that on the termination of his employment he had to return or destroy all documents pertaining to his work, and that he would not use or disclose any confidential information.

He did not respond to the company’s demands, so it applied for an injunction.

The court found in favour of Amazon, saying that it had a strong case. Tejan-Kella had put forward no defence and there was no possible defence to the claim that he was in breach of contract.

There was no question of Amazon seeking to prevent Tejan-Kella from providing the information he might wish to provide to the employment tribunal. It wanted the injunction to prevent him revealing any other confidential document of which it was not aware.

It was clear that the injunction, and the undertaking sought, were intended simply to ensure that Tejan-Kella did what he was obliged to do. The injunction would be granted as there was no possible defence to the claim

If you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of employment law please contact Mark on 01228 516666.

By Mark Aspin Director and Head of Dispute Resolution