Facts
[X. AG] (Employer, Defendant, Appellant) hired [K.] (Employee, Plaintiff, Respondent) as a partner effective September 1, 2000. The employment contract stipulated that [K.] would receive a 10% stake in the "Carried Interest Pool" of [X. AG] . [K.] terminated his employment on March 27, 2002, effective September 30, 2002. Subsequently, [K.] filed a lawsuit against [X. AG] for payment of his claim to the Carried Interest Pool in the amount of CHF 29,069.--.
The Labour Court upheld the claim. [X. AG] appealed to the Cantonal Court of Zurich, which reduced the owed amount to CHF 5,631.30. The Cantonal Court considered [K.] 's claim from the Carried Interest Pool to be generally justified, but calculated the owed amount only based on the direct investment in the company "[Q.] " and rejected a claim regarding the indirect investment in the fund "[Z.] " due to lack of maturity.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined the appeal of [X. AG] against the decision of the Cantonal Court. It concluded that the lower court had interpreted the employment contract and the accompanying appendix "Carried Interest Pool" in accordance with federal law.
The Federal Supreme Court stated that the lower court rightly assumed that the parties had agreed on [K.] 's participation in the Carried Interest Pool. The wording in the employment contract, according to which a Carried Interest Pool "will be established", does not mean that the participation was not yet determined, but only that the compensation system should be set up in the future. The lower court interpreted the contract according to the principle of trust and found that the regulation was agreed without reservation or vesting clause.
Regarding the question of how the share in the Carried Interest is to be handled in the event of the employee's departure during the investment period and before the realization of the investment, the lower court has legitimately supplemented the contract. Since neither mandatory nor dispositive statutory law provides a suitable…