Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No CA 109/07
Hearing date 10 Jul 2007
Determination date 03 September 2007
Member P Cheyne
Representation M Withers ; S Wilson, S Townsend
Location Christchurch
Parties McMillen v Pilates Plus Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant employed by pilates studio while his wife ran a gym -Respondent dismissed applicant when concluded he was involved in gym and in breach of terms of employment agreement and duty of fidelity - Previous owner of pilates studio aware of wife’s business but did not consider it a conflict of interest - Nothing in information available to respondent to cast doubt on applicant’s statement not actively involved with wife’s business - Nature of business had not changed since first owner considered no competition - No evidence limited involvement in gym adversely affected performance of duties for respondent - No evidence of applicant abused position to advantage of gym, or of any risk to respondent’s business - No breach of duty of fidelity - No breach of express or implied terms so no basis for dismissal - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Lost wages attributable to establishment of own business rather than dismissal - Unjust to require respondent to subsidise establishment of competing business - COUNTERCLAIM - Claim for penalty for breach of good faith could not succeed as no attempt to relate facts to s4A Employment Relations Act 2000 - No breach of employment agreement arising from applicant’s dealing with client - Counterclaims dismissed - Non publication order relating to personal evidence regarding client - Pilates instructor
Result Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Counterclaims dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s4A;ERA s133(b)
Cases Cited Tisco v Communication and Energy Workers’ Union [1993] 2 ERNZ 779
Number of Pages 12
PDF File Link: ca 109_07.pdf [pdf 42 KB]