In his judgment, the judge stated: “However [the employer] chose to reflect the grants in its accounts, for the purposes of the profit-sharing arrangement I considered that the grants – all of which were given because of the employees [the employer] employed – ought properly to be apportioned between the Events division and the Static division.”
The court ruled that the worker was entitled to additional payments for other government grants that the employer had received but not shared, including Job Support Scheme (JSS) grants introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
For the JSS grants, the court accepted the employer’s calculation of $737,793.44 rather than the worker’s higher claim. The employer’s figure was based on an official breakdown from government authorities, with amounts correctly apportioned to the Events division based on employees in that division.
The court awarded the worker a total of $751,744.24 for various grants, which after deducting the worker’s admitted share of division losses, resulted in a net award of $736,797.27 plus interest from July 2021 to January 2025.
Is it a valid summary dismissal?
Despite ruling in the worker’s favour regarding profit-sharing, the court found his summary dismissal was justified. The employer had terminated employment based on multiple incidents where notice had not been given to the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department before security officers were employed, as required by the Private Security Industry Act 2007.
