When Snowling, who returned to New Zealand in January 2020, received confirmation his employment would end and was advised he would receive $147,719.20 - a redundancy payment of $128,419.20 and an accrued leave payment of $19,300.00 - he challenged the amount, claiming he was entitled to much more.
He sought $559,897.18 from the company which included an “expat” allowance of $108,333.00, bonus payments of $115,146.00 and a German tax payment totalling $143,909.74 on top of the redundancy package he had been offered.
In response to Snowling’s contention, Scott advised it would carry out an external reconciliation audit into his pay and tax history, including previous alleged salary overpayments dating back to 2015, and his final pay would be withheld until this was complete.
The examination subsequently found Snowling, who worked in China between 2012 and 2016 and Germany between 2012 and 2019, had been unjustly enriched by way of salary and tax overpayments totalling $410,604.
During his time abroad Snowling, at times, received three separate salaries concurrently into New Zealand, German and Chinese bank accounts resulting in the excess remuneration.
The dispute needed to be taken to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) to resolve.
In its decision released this month, ERA member Andrew Dallas found there was a significant force in Scott’s primary counterclaim against Snowling of unjust enrichment by mistaken payment.
When contrasted with Snowling’s claims against the company the resultant weakness of his position, except for those relating to payment of redundancy and accrued leave, were stark, Dallas said.
He did not accept Snowling’s claims he was entitled to receive multiple salaries from Scott, payment of an “expat” allowance, bonus-payment, nor his claims in relation to German tax payments and for reimbursement for tax advice in Germany and New Zealand.
“Mr Snowling’s contention that he performed three jobs concurrently, occupying 120 hours per week, is simply not sustainable,” Dallas said.
“I find that Mr Snowling was enriched by mistaken payments made to him by Scott and such enrichment was unjust in the circumstance where Mr Snowling knew or ought to have known that such payments were not due and owing to him.”
He found the company had established its claim against Snowling for restitution totalling $410,604.
The company was not without fault, however, and Dallas expressed specific concerns regarding its decision to retain Snowling’s redundancy package.
He said the components of the employment relationship problem were easily severable from the unjust enrichment dispute, and described the company’s actions as “particularly egregious”.
“I do not accept Scott’s submission that it had ‘reasonable justification for withholding these payments’.”
To avoid the parties having to exchange various sums of money, Dallas subtracted the outstanding redundancy package of $147,719.20 from the $410,604.00 awarded to Scott, which left Snowling owing his former employer $262,884.80.
