A man who claimed he was entitled to five years of wages and compensation after his relationship with a window importing company broke down has had his case dismissed, after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found he was a shareholder and business partner, not an employee.
Claim for Wages and Employment Remedies
The claimant said he was employed on a full-time basis at $1,000 per week while holding a 20% shareholding. He sought unpaid wages and remedies for unjustified dismissal and disadvantage. He maintained that employment protections applied regardless of shareholding.
Business Origins and Shareholding Structure
The relationship began in January 2019, when the man was introduced through a sailing contact to the company’s directors, who wanted to import windows from Turkey.
He offered to assist with translation and cultural support, with an entrepreneurial background and Turkish connections.
The man recommended incorporating the business to secure supplier confidence after a successful trip to Turkey. He was given a 20% shareholding and business cards as “international business coordinator,” with an understanding he would share in profits once the company was successful.
Disputed Payments and Conduct Concerns
The worker maintained there was an agreement for $1,000 weekly wages plus expenses. The directors insisted only costs were covered, with payments from personal bank accounts or another company. Messages later described these as “loans.”
The Authority noted his own communications often used partnership language. In December 2021, he wrote: “I work for my self in company I am partner with you… You win I win.”
He also pursued independent business ventures, including an attempt to export manuka honey, and made autonomous decisions such as leasing office space and commissioning a website.
Relationship Breakdown and Dispute Lodged
Tensions rose in April 2024 over website development costs. In a final April message, the man wrote: “I don’t have to educate you in your due diligence as a director and address my rights as a working partner.” He ceased communication and filed a grievance in May.
ERA Dismisses Employment Relationship Claim
Applying the control, integration, and “own account” tests, the ERA found the claimant “made decisions about what, when, how and where he chose to work” and “was free to engage in other work.”
It ruled that such autonomy was “inconsistent with the role of an employee.” The Authority held he “was not an employee of any of the respondents,” noting his role was tied to a 20% shareholding. All claims were dismissed.