| Summary |
BREACH OF CONTRACT – GOOD FAITH – No appearance for respondent - Applicant claimed respondent breached employment agreement (“EA”) by soliciting applicant’s clients, denigrated applicant to third parties, and set up own company in competition with applicant – Respondent argued constructively dismissal therefore no duty owed and no breach as applicant repudiated EA – Applicant held meeting to resolve “negative” attitude among employees – Applicant drew diagram to get employees to choose whether committed to applicant – Diagram consisted of horizontal line, above labelled “ASAP Door” and below labelled “F*** off” – Applicant stated to employees “make choice what side of line you on” – Respondent claimed applicant’s actions left respondent no choice but to resign and set up competing company – Applicant offered respondent day off on pay to think about position – Respondent subsequently advised applicant resigning and going into competition with applicant – Respondent solicited applicant’s clients, offered competing prices and denigrated applicant – Authority found applicant’s comments at meeting directed at everyone and to get employees focused on work – Found technique not “gold standard” but unreasonable to expect applicant to meet such standard when applicant small business – Found respondent given day’s grace period to reconsider position – No constructive dismissal – Found even if respondent constructively dismissed, respondent not entitled to breach EA and obligations of fidelity and good faith – Found EA provided obligation to refrain from competing with applicant, solicit applicant’s clients, and use applicant’s property for personal gain – Found respondent actively breached EA and obligations – Breach of contract – Breach of good faith – REMEDIES – Applicant sought $1,288 compensation for lost company time to remedy damage done by respondent – Sought $2,445 actual lost revenue due to respondent soliciting client (“A”) – Sought $6,000 lost future profits due to loss of contract with A – Sought $13,500 lost cash flow due to respondent encouraging A to pay half of outstanding invoice with applicant – Authority found appropriate to award damages for lost time – Found $2,000 appropriate for lost revenue – Found $6,000 appropriate for lost future profits – Found insufficient evidence to support final claim – Respondent ordered to pay applicant $9,228 total damages - PENALTY – Authority declined to award penalty for breach of obligations – COSTS – Authority ordered respondent to pay applicant $2,750 reasonable contribution to costs – Operations manager |