Auckland Council told to pay sacked leisure centre worker $15k

Auckland Council has been told to pay $15,000 to a former worker it sacked for running his own personal training business while working as a leisure centre employee.

By Susan Edmunds of RNZ

Ilalio Solomona was dismissed in February 2025, for not declaring his own personal training business, and for uploading social media videos he made at the council-run centre to support it, without council permission.

He took a case to the Employment Relations Authority, arguing the dismissal was unjustified and he was unjustifiably disadvantaged in his employment. He wanted lost wages, compensation and costs.

Solomona started his own personal training business in 2019 with a small number of clients. He began working at Auckland Council's Birkenhead Pool and Leisure Centre in 2022, as a fitness instructor.

When he was applying for the position, Solomona and council recruitment team member Kim Lovett talked about his training business but did not directly discuss whether he would continue to run it.

The authority said Solomona left the conversation thinking he had said he would continue his business while Lovett understood he would move his clients across to the centre.

He said he did not have any conflicts of interest with the role. He told the authority he answered that way because his clients were in East Tāmaki and were not likely to travel to Birkenhead for personal training.

As part of his employment he had a conflict of interest provision that stopped him undertaking other employment or business activities that could create a conflict of interest, interfere with the performance of his duties or undermine the best interests of Auckland Council.

Solomona talked to his manager about his business from time to time while employed at the centre but when he was periodically asked to make conflict-of-interest declarations, he did not refer to it.

In June 2023, he made some short videos of customers talking about fitness and posted them to social media. He said he made them when he was using the facilities to exercise, not during work times. He said they were part of his efforts to reach out to people to support his own business.

Auckland Council head of operations north Edward Ng said the videos were discovered by a team leader at the facility at least 12 months before the council chose to start disciplinary action.

In February 2025, he was invited to a disciplinary meeting. Ng wrote in the letter informing him of the meeting that Auckland Council had "significant concerns in respect of a potential conflict of interest" and that there may be a breach of a number of policies.

The letter did not refer to any specific provision in Solomona's employment agreement relating to conflicts of interest.

It was alleged Solomona might have breached the confidentiality of members at the Auckland Council facility and breached his employment obligations by engaging in a conflict of interest for personal gain.

Authority member Matthew Piper said the council's conflict of interest guide did not apply easily to Solomona's situation.

"Read in full, it focused on ensuring municipal decision making was appropriately transparent and defined a conflict of interest as being: A conflict of interest arises whenever our decisions and responsibilities as public employees can be perceived as creating a benefit for ourselves personally, for our family and friends, or for groups, including business associations we are involved with.

"This could be anything from accessing information not available to the general public, to owning a family business that supplies to the council.

"None of these situations were relevant to Mr Solomona."

During the disciplinary meeting, Solomona accepted he had been running a business outside work hours that he had not declared as a conflict of interest, and agreed he had filmed three people at the centre, but said he had their permission to do so.

He said he would have removed the videos if he had been asked to.

He said he did not realise that the business was a breach of policies.

Another meeting was held a couple of days later where Solomona was informed that he had the option to resign.

Solomona said he was not prepared to and was told Auckland Council had decided to summarily terminate his employment.

He raised a personal grievance in March.

Piper said council's actions were not what a fair and reasonable employer would have done. It jumped straight to a full disciplinary process and relied on policies that did not in substance apply to the situation.

"Auckland Council could have referred to Mr Solomona's contractual duties… But it did not. It embarked on a different disciplinary process based on different obligations, which was confusing and unfair."

Piper said it was reasonable to award Solomona $2224 for lost wages, and $15,000 in compensation for the stress and upset caused by the abrupt termination.

That award was reduced to $13,500 because Piper said he should have given greater credence to the provisions in his employment agreement that stopped him engaging in activity that could conflict with his ability to devote himself to his Auckland Council role.

"Although the Birkenhead Leisure Centre did not have personal trainers at the time, Mr Solomona could have referred potential clients to another of Auckland Council's leisure centres, rather than taking them on as clients himself.

"In this way, he did indeed have a conflict with the business activities carried out by Auckland Council which he was employed to support and further.

"However, Mr Solomona's disclosure of his business to his line manager amounted to him telling Auckland Council about it. Carrying on his business after having done so cannot properly be regarded as rising to the level of wrongful behaviour."