The boss of a building company let go after his role was disestablished claims he was unjustifiably dismissed and is owed $1.7 million.

Bryce Wilson was employed by Pragma Designer Homes Limited as the firm’s general manager from 2016 to 2022, when he was dismissed following a company restructuring.

Following his termination, his duties were transferred to Sanjil Mistry, the managing director, and Wilson lodged an application with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) claiming he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged, unjustifiably dismissed and sought compensation.

Wilson alleged Pragma breached the terms of his employment agreement and that Mistry should be ordered to pay a penalty for allegedly aiding and abetting the breaches.

While he is seeking lost wages and a bonus entitlement of $1.7m, Wilson has now made an application to have his claim with the ERA moved to the Employment Court.

Pragma denied treating Wilson unfairly or breaching his terms of employment and has advanced its own application to the ERA, seeking the return in bonuses it claims he was overpaid.

The firm has also requested a penalty be imposed on him for allegedly using its commercially-sensitive information in a breach of good faith.

In the ERA’s recent decision on Wilson’s application to have the claim transferred, he argued the Employment Court was the appropriate venue for the litigation to be heard as it involved “complex and unusual aspects”.

Pragma and Mistry opposed the case being moved.

The Employment Relations Authority has dismissed an application to move a $1.7 million compensation claim to the Employment Court, ruling it had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Photo / 123rf

The details to be decided included the argument around the “very substantial entitlement to bonuses”, the inclusion of Mistry in the proceedings and another dispute, outside of the employment jurisdiction but connected to the proceedings.

Wilson claims he is owed a bonus entitlement of $1,793,694 while Pragma believed he had been overpaid $540,833.

Pragma submitted the equation was relatively straightforward, the authority had jurisdiction to make the ruling and there were no questions of law or public interest that warranted the case going to the court.

The ERA could appoint an accountant to assist if the parties’ calculations needed expert review, the company submitted.

The unrelated conflict concerned payment for building work done by Pragma on a house for Wilson’s family trust and would need to be dealt with by separate, parallel proceedings in the civil jurisdiction, no matter where the employment case was heard, the company submitted.

ERA member Robin Arthur noted in the decision that while the application concerned only Wilson’s claim, the parties agreed if it was sent to the court, Pragma’s counterclaim would need to follow because it involved the same parties and the same, similar or related issues.

Wilson’s application was based on two grounds: he submitted important questions of law were likely to arise other than incidentally and he argued the ERA could and should find the circumstances warranted the court’s determination.

He claimed the bonus provisions in his employment agreement were varied when he relocated from Christchurch to Hamilton in 2019, but Pragma argued the terms remained the same as those in the 2016 employment agreement.

The ongoing building dispute, between the company and the family trust, was interconnected because it coincided with Pragma’s actions in the employment relationship, triggering his claims, Wilson contended.

A default notice and threat to suspend works on his family home were a form of retaliation, Wilson alleged, after he raised a personal grievance about his bonus entitlement.

He believed the timing would generate an important question of law regarding whether the dispute was entirely separate from his claims against the company.

ERA’s Arthur said while the claim and counterclaim involved some factual complexity and concerned a substantial amount of money, the resolution of the issues would not likely require the ERA to apply principles of contractual interpretation that would have far-reaching consequences or affect anyone outside of the case.

The authority’s goal was to take a fact-oriented, merits-based approach to resolving problems in employment relationships, which included disputes about what employment agreements mean.

There was no restriction in the act limiting the authority’s jurisdiction because of the amount involved.

“The principles to be applied in this case concerning a bonus entitlement worth more than a million dollars are likely the same as those applicable if the amount in dispute was $10,000,” Arthur said in his decision.

“Both scenarios could have a factual context of equal complexity.”

In relation to the factual issues about what happened in the building dispute, Arthur stated the where and why were well within the authority’s jurisdiction to investigate and determine.

He ruled Wilson’s anticipated questions of law, to be applied to the facts, were not of sufficient importance to warrant the case going to court and the authority could consider the factual issues which sparked the building dispute without encroaching on the civil jurisdiction’s resolution.

The application to move the case to court was dismissed and costs were reserved pending the ERA’s findings on the main matters.

The central claims in the case remain before the ERA and a determination would be issued in due course but there was no date set for its release.

-Leighton Keith, Open Justice