The green-eyed monster in the workplace – and the ERA

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently found that a personal trainer was unjustifiably dismissed by Auckland City Council.  This was reported by Stuff and Radio NZ.  The link to the determination is here.

ERA Member Matthew Piper recorded that Ilalio Solomona “started his own personal training business in 2019, with a small number of clients”. 

Solomona started working at the Birkenhead Pool and Leisure Centre, operated by Auckland City Council, in May 2022.  Robert Morgan, Solomona’s advocate in the employment proceeding, explained that he had applied for the 20hpw position “due to a decline in work during covid times”.  So he then had two part-time jobs that added up to full-time hours, although Morgan suggests that the business was mischaracterised as a “side hustle” because Solomona was actually working slightly more hours in his business and therefore the Council job was really the side hustle.

A local government entity will rightly have rules around managing potential conflicts of interests, and the fact that Solomona’s business was in Otahuhu, 24km from Birkenhead meant that the Council need not be concerned about the possibility of him poaching clients for his own business.  Solomona declared his business activities, although Council’s disclosure policies appeared to have been applied sporadically, in the nature of a tick-box exercise.  But to be fair, transparency around procurement would likely be of much greater concern to any Council, than secondary employment.

Solomona’s employment with the Council ended in February 2025 by way of summary dismissal, which the ERA later found to be unjustified. 

The determination notes that in June 2023, Solomona made a set of short “motivational” videos of Birkenhead leisure centre customers talking about fitness and wellbeing.  Council did not allege that there was anything untoward about these videos that were posted on social media, although Solomona admitted that he was also promoting his own business. 

The team leader at the Birkenhead facility had discovered the videos and raised this (including potential privacy concerns) with Solomona, but no further action was taken. 

Tall poppy syndrome

Then, more than a year later, another manager Solomona had not previously had anything to do with had a crack at him in relation to his part-time business.  The issue that was raised more than a year earlier around the motivational videos was resurrected, and “significant concerns in respect of a potential conflict of interest” were raised, albeit clumsily.

Two days later, he was in a disciplinary meeting, without a support person, and a couple of days after that he was invited to resign but refused, and was dismissed – again, clumsily.

This matter is a little close to the bone because prior to becoming full-time self-employed in 2015, I ran my company as a side-hustle for 11 years.  During that time I had several jobs and disclosed my business activities to all of my managers - including advising that I needed to use a couple of weeks of annual leave each year to service wine presses.  Colleagues’ attitudes towards my side hustle were a mixed bag - generally supportive, technically curious, indifferent – and jealous.  While I was never dismissed for jealousy-driven complaints, I was issued with a performance improvement plan and immediately used that as an excuse to jump (and probably still haven’t been forgiven).  The tall poppy syndrome has long blighted commerce in New Zealand and that seems to have been a feature of the Solomona matter. 

On the flip side, it is never OK to use a work vehicle to do private jobs, for example.  A lot of employment disputes arise from vehicle use.

Robert Morgan went on to say “... as previous management at the facility had not expressed concerns, then jealousy would appear to be a prime motive, although without knowing who lodged the complaint, this can only be assumed”. 

That means we don’t know if the complainant(s) remain employed by the Council or have gone on to cause jealousy-driven disruption elsewhere, but it seems unlikely that they anticipated a trumped-up disciplinary matter ending up in media!

Result

The employer got off lightly because “Mr Solomona was well placed to manage the loss of his 20hpw as an employee at Auckland Council”, ie: he was able to hit the ground running and mitigate his losses.  Member Piper awarded him $2,224 in lost wages under s 128, and $13,500 for hurt and humiliation under s 123 (1) (c) (i).

Tristam Price, Editor