Chows owe ex-worker $66k
The former marketing manager of the Chow brothers’ Stonewood Group has been awarded $66,077 by the Employment Relations Authority after the company sacked her for ‘‘irreconcilable differences’’ it could not prove.
Stonewood Group Ltd is a commercial property management company.
In March 2016, Inno Capital, a company owned by Michael and John (Ka Yu) Chow and finance specialist Clint Webber, purchased Stonewood from receivers and it continues to trade.
Emma McAlpine started working at Stonewood on April 24 last year as a marketing and communications manager but was fired on claims she failed to follow instructions, accused her boss of bullying and made ‘‘repeated threats’’ to involve her lawyer in her employment dispute.
In November last year, McAlpine was asked to speak at Stonewood Homes’ annual conference on marketing strategy to the company’s franchisees.
Before the conference, she had a meeting with Stonewood director John Chow and chief operating officer Brent Gilchrist to discuss her presentation.
Chow claims he was not impressed with her marketing strategy but failed to clearly convey this to McAlpine, so she went ahead with her presentation.
At the conference, McAlpine asked for franchisees’ feedback on her presentation because she mentioned Chow was a little ‘‘ho hum’’ about her strategy.
Chow felt her comments that he was ‘‘ho hum’’ about the idea undermined him, and he communicated his disappointment in an email to Gilchrist that McAlpine was also copied in on.
Gilchrist replied saying he had spoken to McAlpine and that she was adamant Chow did not explicitly say whether or not he was on board with the idea and that’s why she said he was ‘‘ho hum’’.
Chow responded by asking for a written explanation from McAlpine and said all future marketing strategies needed to be ticked off by him first.
In her email, McAlpine did not respond to Chow’s direction that he would have the final say on all her strategies but said the matter was getting a ‘‘little out of hand’’ and she had no intention of undermining Chow.
She also said Chow’s request for a written explanation was bordering on bullying and intimidation.
Chow accepted her apology but suggested she consult her lawyer to clarify her employment rights and asked Gilchrist to arrange a meeting ‘‘about the process’’.
Thinking Chow was referring to a disciplinary process because Stonewood had a reputation for high staff turnover, McAlpine took stress leave.
McAlpine met with Chow and Gilchrist on November 12 and they addressed the miscommunication. Again Chow said he expected to have the final say on her marketing strategy plans and if McAlpine did not agree to this she would be fired.
Although McAlpine agreed to follow his instructions, Chow held another meeting the next day and said he was considering his legal options on her employment. After the meeting ended on November 13, Chow sent McAlpine an email highlighting his concerns about being called a bully, ‘‘repeated threats’’ to have her lawyer respond, McAlpine not following his instructions immediately after he told her he would have the final say on her marketing strategies, and for being late to work.
Chow said McAlpine’s conduct had been a serious breach of trust and suspended her.
On November 22, Stonewood held a disciplinary meeting with the company’s board where it was decided McAlpine’s employment would end because the differences were irreconcilable and she had made bullying allegations without any proof.
Her employment ended on November 24, 2018.
But the Employment Relations Authority found Stonewood’s decision to sack McAlpine was not fair and reasonable because it could not prove the irreconcilable breakdown.
The ERA said every time an issue arose it was resolved.
For instance, when Chow felt undermined by McAlpine’s presentation, she apologised and he accepted.
Then Chow’s concern that McAlpine was not following his instructions that he had the final say on her ideas was eventually agreed to by her.
McAlpine’s complaint that she was being bullied into writing an explanation letter was resolved because Chow agreed he no longer needed this, the ERA said.
Gilchrist said he also took into account other complaints of bullying that McAlpine had made about Chow prior to the events in November, but failed to give the authority any evidence of this.
McAlpine said the dismissal caused her distress and financial hardship as she was the main wage earner for her family and they struggled through the Christmas period.
Stonewood Group Ltd has been ordered to pay McAlpine $48,077 in lost wages and $18,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.