You are going from the description on Stuff, and there may be more to that story than what's in the paper.

There is a lot more to this story than the rather one sided view expressed by the journalist who wrote the Stuff story.

Read this yesterday... the line that really had me intrigued was this "They said they were also taking assets such as laptops, phones and three vehicles as the former employer would not need them any more."   I'd want to see what their contracts said because if the company owned those assets they really cannot do that...its theft!

Now...if the "assets" were their own, not the company's, then all power to them TBH.

The story reads very one sided, There's 100% a side that isn't being told. Why would the employer only be treating this as an employment issue and not pressing theft charges for employees "Stealing" company assets?  Vehicles are a pretty big thing to let slide if it was exactly as the article read.

My thoughts align with the above. There has got to be more to this story.

"The four men told the authority the dispute they had with the company was commercial and centred around the company’s failure to complete agreements to purchase various other companies. It was not an employment dispute, they said.

A lawyer acting for the men said the company had no arguable case."

Situation must have got pretty dire if the four people thought their best course of action was to take all the assets of the company and start up a new business.

Taking physical assets (incl vehicles) seems well out of the ordinary. Usually such cases involve being more sneaky, such as taking a copy of a client database when they leave etc.

Up to this point the company is winning the legal battle. 

These men possibly should have used a better lawyer who didn't assume the company had no arguable case. Judge disagreed. 

Age old conflict story, employees vs employer. Must have been a massive bust up. 

Sounds like a contractual issue to me.

i.e. a number of independent contractors came together in one company with an agreement that they all get X equity/profitshare or similar.

If the lead or acquiring company then reneged on said agreement, then said agreement was null and void - and the previously independent contractors, who probably brought their own assets (computers/vehicles etc) into the company then withdrew their assets, as they're legally entitled to do as the acquiring contract is null and void.

In that situation they're perfectly entitled to start their own company, and customers can choose who they want to do business with.

Upshot is, likely to be very shallow one-sided sensationalist journalism.

The Employment Relations Authority granted an injunction to the employer and required the (former) employee’s to conform to their employment contracts, regarding non-compete clauses. The ERA wouldn’t have done this unless there was a prima-facie case to answer. The case requires more extensive investigation.

The former employees have acted foolishly at minimum and should sue their lawyer if they genuinely believed the advice given. Which seems unbelievable according to even common sense.

While the article may be one-sided I cannot think of any circumstance an employee is entitled to belive something paid for by a company is theirs. Only exceptions might be PPE or items cannot safely be used by another.

Quinny:

 

While the article may be one-sided I cannot think of any circumstance an employee is entitled to belive something paid for by a company is theirs. Only exceptions might be PPE or items cannot safely be used by another.

 

 

 

 

 

Many of the assets are likely to have been paid for by these men before they joined NZTG - fair to say it's a pretty unusual situation, not your typical employment arrangement

https://nztechnologygroup.com/news/million-dollar-investment-speeds-up-hawkes-bays-rural-broadband/

Would be nice if Ray could chime in here with his side of the story, but I suspect that would be legally unadvisable

Quinny:

 

While the article may be one-sided I cannot think of any circumstance an employee is entitled to belive something paid for by a company is theirs. 

 

What if the company owed the employees a lot of money but was not repaying it?  Or the company had promised some kind of ownership rights or profit sharing in return for a lower salary?    What if an employee had bought in significant revenues to the company but was not being rewarded for their hard work, generating bitterness.

The employees may not even truly believe they can get away with this, but are doing this purely for retribution.  

I don't know why, but this situation makes me think of that movie "Office Space". I wonder if they took the evil printer?

NZ Tech Group always had a weird vibe when you talked to their managers. The story was also always how great their network was and that's why it's priced as it is and blah blah blah. Knew a couple of their support guys and one of their sales people and they never spoke very highly of the company regarding their general treatment.

I feel sorry for the customers - a large batch of them were the load from Intagr8 and have dealt with a whole bunch of cr4p related to that. Although I guess it's not clear whether the whole company will be affected, or just this Hawkes Bay office.

surfisup1000:

 

Quinny:

 

While the article may be one-sided I cannot think of any circumstance an employee is entitled to belive something paid for by a company is theirs. 

 

 

What if the company owed the employees a lot of money but was not repaying it?  Or the company had promised some kind of ownership rights or profit sharing in return for a lower salary?    What if an employee had bought in significant revenues to the company but was not being rewarded for their hard work, generating bitterness.

 

The employees may not even truly believe they can get away with this, but are doing this purely for retribution.  

 

I don't know why, but this situation makes me think of that movie "Office Space". I wonder if they took the evil printer?

 

 

 

No, in the circumstances you listed you still cannot take the goods. You do not own them. Even if a shareholder the company owns them not you. If you have revenues owed you are either a preferred or unsecured creditor. Same as wages and IRD are defined by law what happens. 

Does anyone know more about New Zealand Technology Group? I seem to recall the strategy was to make a large techn company by combing lots of smaller ones through mergers?

Only know what's on their site.... basically become a one-stop-shop for corporate IT etc.