After stints in China and Germany between 2012 and 2019, he returned to New Zealand in January 2020, but was made redundant four months later in a company restructuring.
He claimed the company owed him $559,897.18 in redundancy compensation, accrued annual leave, an expat allowance, bonus payments and a contribution to tax-related expenses.
The company responded by withholding his final payout, and commissioned an external audit of his pay and tax history.
It found it had overpaid Snowling as a consequence of him receiving three salaries concurrently while living and working in China and then Germany.
The dispute went to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) last February, where Scott said it raised its concerns about the overpayments and Snowling’s tax claims in New Zealand with him in 2017.
It conceded it had made a "series of mistakes" that led to salary payments being made when Snowling was already receiving payments to accounts in either China or Germany.
The mistakes resulted in a total of $410,604 in salary and tax overpayments.
However, Snowling had breached good faith obligations by not telling Scott about his erroneous salary and tax position, and failed to rectify it when it was brought to his attention.
It had withheld his redundancy and accrued holiday pay to offset its own claims, which included the salary and tax overpayments as well as for tax liabilities, reimbursement of management time incurred in investigating the matter, penalties and interest.
In his decision, ERA chief Andrew Dallas said the contrast between the merit of the two parties’ claims was "stark’.
Snowling had been "enriched by mistaken payments" when he knew, or ought to have known, he was not owed them.
However, the company had no reasonable justification for withholding his redundancy and holiday pay, totalling $147,719.20, because it had contractual and statutory obligations to pay both.
He ordered Snowling to pay Scott Technology $262,884.80, being the balance of the overpayments after his redundancy and holiday pay was deducted.
Mr Dallas declined the company’s claim for special damages for its investigation costs, saying it should have had systems and processes in place to prevent overpaying its employees.
