| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 43/10 |
| Hearing date | 23 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 03 February 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | A Nichols ; M Ralph |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Nichols v Timbertech (2004) Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Applicant argued entered employment relationship in reliance on representations of obtaining equity share in company – Applicant claimed accepted reduced salary in reliance on offer of equity share – Applicant had not received any shares – Applicant sought order for settlement of entitlement to shareholding – Respondent argued no breach of terms and conditions of applicant’s employment – Respondent claimed shares part of commission package and subject to sale of franchises – No mention in employment agreement of share equity – Authority found share equity raised during recruitment but required further discussion – Found no arrangement finalised – Found oral term of employment that shareholding be part of remuneration package – Found no shareholding acquired - Found oral agreement too vague to be enforceable – Found applicant not misled or deceived about details of shareholding arrangement – Found no liability of respondent to applicant in respect of matters raised – Franchising manager |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Sinclair v Webb & McCormack Ltd & Anor (1990) 3 NZELC 97 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 43_10.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |