The woman had been working as a cafe assistant at the Muffin Break cafe in Botany Town Centre. Photo / Google Maps
A woman not long out of school has won $10,000 after various issues with her employer, including limiting breaks and an unexpected disciplinary meeting in the middle of an Auckland mall after which she was comforted by a customer.
After responding to a Trade Me advertisement, Rebecca Young started as a cafe assistant at the Muffin Break cafe in Botany Town Centre in early September 2018.
The cafe franchise was operated by Bourson Limited, and De Kai (Larry) Lu was the sole director at that time.
Young started work without a written employment agreement but, seeking a contract, was sent a link to a drop box containing a contract template.
In November 2018, she received a hard copy document with many or all of the same gaps as the previous version.
The next day she went into work but was not allowed to resume her duties before signing on.
Young did not see a problem with working while she sought advice, given she had by then already been working for more than two months without any written agreement.
The trial period terms was disputed. Young refused to sign the agreement when she believed the trial period was unlawful.
Upset, she contacted the head office. Shortly afterwards, Lu called to apologise. He said she would be paid for her time and accepted the trial period was indeed invalid.
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) concluded Young had been sent home twice by Lu when she would otherwise have been working.
“She not unreasonably concluded this was because she would not sign the agreement immediately. This amounted to a suspension from work.”
It was one of three grievances the ERA’s ruling established.
The other two were failure to provide rest breaks, and unjustified warning.
The ERA said Young’s understanding was that she was entitled to a 30-minute lunch break plus two 10-minute breaks.
During her employment, however, one break was cut. Young said Lu told her she was not allowed it if she needed to go to the bathroom during the shift.
“Mr Lu suggested that Ms Young took an excessive number and/or excessively lengthy bathroom stops,” the decision reads.
“He was not directly aware of this given his limited attendance at the cafe and what he reported seemed unlikely.”
Once Young checked with head office – finding Lu had misunderstood them – the second break was reinstated.
On December 2, 2018, Lu called Young asking to meet the next day.
“Ms Young says when she tried to find out what the meeting was about, he responded ‘don’t worry about it’. Mr Lu denies this.”
She assumed it was a staff-wide meeting. Lu claimed he mentioned the meeting was about her performance.
“I do not accept that,” the ERA said.
“Ms Young was focused on her rights and sought information and assistance from her parents about work issues.”
The ERA did not…
Read More: Employment compensation: Auckland woman wins $10,000 after job issues at