Allied Security loses Court case against Peter Jones

Peter Jones spent more than 20 years building his name in Wellington’s security industry, closing contracts and generating enough sales to keep dozens of staff in work. At Recon Security, where he worked from 2008, his income was built almost entirely on commission. Inland Revenue records showed he regularly earned between $13,000 and $42,000 a month, averaging close to $22,000.

When Recon was sold to Allied Investments Limited (trading as Allied Security) in September 2021, Jones was assured nothing would change. His transfer agreement promised the same pay and conditions, only under a different employer name. For the first few months, that held true: Jones received more than $20,000 in monthly commission, calculated by Recon’s payroll advisor Rhiannon Hunt and signed off by Recon director Blair Malcolm.

The shift came when Allied’s directors, Damien Black and Chris McDowall, determined that Jones’s relationship with Hunt presented a conflict of interest. They assumed control of the commission calculations. Almost immediately, his earnings collapsed. Payments that once exceeded $20,000 dropped—sometimes to nearly nothing. By February 2022, what might have been nearly $24,000 under the old system was cut to under $8,000.

Jones pushed back hard. He pointed out that Allied’s changes meant an approximate 80% cut to his income, and argued that they breached the promise to maintain his prior system. He demanded back payment of arrears and that the old commission structure be reinstated. Allied refused, saying only their interpretation of the written contract mattered — irrespective of how it had been historically applied.

In May 2022, with arrears unresolved and no agreement reached, Jones resigned and claimed constructive dismissal. Allied countered, accusing him of overpayment, deleting data from his work laptop, locking his phone, and misusing confidential information upon joining a new firm — demanding more than $140,000 in return.

The Employment Court rejected all Allied’s claims. In a judgment dated 28 July 2025, Judge JC Holden found Allied had unjustifiably and constructively dismissed Jones by unilaterally slashing his commission. The Court ruled there was no overpayment, no misuse of confidential information, and no loss caused by deleting emails. Fingerprint security on his phone was deemed standard practice. With no restraint of trade clause in place, Jones was free to work in his field after leaving.

Allied was ordered to pay him: $50,777.18 in unpaid commission, $3,052.80 wrongly deducted from final pay, three months’ lost earnings (less ACC deductions), $25,000 compensation for humiliation and distress, along with holiday pay, KiwiSaver contributions, interest, and legal costs. Allied had already paid nearly $80,000 into Court; that sum will now be released to Jones, and the company must pay the remainder within 28 days.

Judge Holden emphasized that Allied was not entitled to override the long-standing commission system Recon had used and which Allied had promised to continue. The way Allied treated Jones, the Court found, fell short of what a fair and reasonable employer should do under New Zealand employment law.

You can read the full judgment here: https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2025-NZEmpC-157-Allied-Investments-Ltd-v-Jones-judgment-of-Judge-JC-Holden-28-July-2025.pdf