The matter was before the Employment Relations Authority, where the woman argued she was unjustifiably dismissed and should be reinstated, and an interim decision was released last week.
It said Phillip Scott was the sole director of Scott’s Brewing Ltd and a 95% shareholder, while his wife, Tyla, owned 5% of the business.
In 2013, they married and moved their business from Auckland to Oamaru.
Initially, both were registered as co-directors until 2014, when Ms Scott was no longer a director — a decision she said was based on accounting advice.
In July last year, things turned sour and the pair separated.
Scott’s Brewing Ltd chief executive Brooke Kofoed asked the couple to take a step back from their roles over the 2023 Christmas period as their relationship tensions were affecting the business and staff.
The Scotts agreed and in June this year Ms Scott’s lawyer wrote to Scott’s Brewing Ltd indicating she considered "sufficient time has passed" and it was "appropriate to restore her participation in Scotts and its management to 2023 levels".
About a week later the company’s lawyer emailed Ms Scott to advise she was "surplus to requirement".
"Your role carrying out the company’s administration, payroll and human resource functions has been able to be picked up by the chief executive and other staff," the email read.
Ms Scott’s job was the only position affected by the sudden plan to restructure and she claimed Mr Scott fired her because he had an ulterior motive.
The company argued the decision was "genuine and based on a fair process".
Ms Scott’s lawyer challenged the redundancy letter, stating she was a "de facto" director and claimed her husband was attempting to oust her from the business.
She believed Mr Scott penned the restructuring letter to circumvent ongoing property division processes relating to the business.
The company disputed Ms Scott had a justifiable claim.
"You are not a director and therefore have no governance role in respect of the company," the business replied.
It reiterated Ms Scott had been away from the company for months and in that time her role was taken over by other employees.
Authority member Antoinette Baker said Ms Scott had a seriously arguable case for unjustified dismissal.
"The timing and acrimonious familial separation context intertwined closely with the proposal and decision of redundancy to arguably support the ulterior motive claimed," Ms Baker said.
She ruled that Ms Scott should not return to work as ongoing tensions could impact Mr Scott and the business, but ordered that she be put back on the payroll for now.
Aspects of each party’s claims still had to be tested before the authority could determine if Ms Scott was wrongfully dismissed and if she should be permanently reinstated.
Matters such as exactly what Ms Scott’s role entailed, why she was no longer a co-director and to what extent Mr Scott stepped back from the business over the Christmas period still had to be clarified.
A substantive investigation was ongoing.
