The chief executive officer stated in his evidence that including these clients in the previous year’s calculation was a mistake. However, since the amount was relatively small at $984.00 and already overdue, they decided to pay it.
“[G]iven that the bonus scheme was discretionary and $984.00 was not material, relative to the time to do the necessary research, and given there were more pressing priorities within the business, I advised [the worker] that the Company would agree to pay $984.00 if she agreed with this amount, which she did,” the CEO explained.
Entitlement to receive incentive payments
The ERA found no evidence that the parties had agreed the worker was entitled to incentive payments on sales to these clients. It noted that written evidence only referred to ‘China sales’, and neither of the disputed clients could reasonably fall into that category.
“Neither [the New Zealand pharmacy chain] nor [the Vietnam distributor] could reasonably be said to form part of China sales. [The pharmacy chain] is a chain of retail pharmacies in New Zealand, and there is no dispute that [the Vietnam distributor’s] focus is on sales into Vietnam,” the ERA stated.
The worker also claimed the employer wasn’t entitled to increase the sales target for the 2023 financial year. The ERA rejected this argument, noting: “It is not unusual for sales targets to be raised over time. The fact that [the employer] set a sales target during the previous financial year does not create an immutable term of [the worker’s] employment, which can never be increased.”
