Director personally on the hook after casual weekend gig ends in security escort
Employment Relations Authority member Eleanor Robinson found on 31 August 2026 that a design intern was unjustifiably dismissed after security escorted her from an exhibition.
JXU, a recent interior design graduate, had been engaged by AEC Design Studio Limited for a casual three-day role at an exhibition stand from 12 to 14 September 2025, on minimum wage. The first evening passed without incident, according to the determination. On the second day, a dispute arose after JXU handed a visitor's business card to the company's director so he could follow up with the contact, then asked for it back so she could photograph it herself as proof she had done her job. The director refused, and when JXU persisted, he told her to leave. She refused, saying her shift was not finished. He then called security and had her removed from the venue.
The Authority found AEC gave no reason for the dismissal and followed no procedure, and determined it did not meet the test of justification under section 103A of the Act. JXU was awarded $446.50 in unpaid wages and $35.72 in holiday pay for the 19 hours she had been engaged to work but was prevented from completing.
On compensation, the determination described the dismissal as "a most distressing experience for JXU and caused her acute stress and anxiety." The Authority noted that JXU had a pre-existing history of psychiatric illness, of which AEC was not shown to have been aware. It reduced the compensation award by 25 percent for her contribution to the events that led to her dismissal, arriving at a final figure of $9,000.
The Authority also found AEC breached five minimum employment standards, including failing to pay wages and holiday pay when due, failing to provide wage and time records, failing to provide a written employment agreement, and failing to act in good faith. These were treated as two breaches for penalty purposes, and the Authority ordered AEC to pay a $2,000 penalty, reflecting the short duration of the engagement and AEC's lack of any prior adverse history.
The Authority then turned to whether the director could also be held liable for the breaches. Under section 142W of the Act, it found he was "knowingly concerned in the breaches of minimum employment standards" and in the failure to pay JXU, though it could not itself impose a penalty on him, as only a Labour Inspector may bring such a claim. Instead, relying on section 142Y(2)(b), the Authority ordered that if AEC fails to pay the wages, holiday pay and compensation owed, the director is personally liable to meet them.
AEC was ordered to pay JXU $446.50 in unpaid wages, $35.72 in holiday pay and $9,000 in compensation, with the director personally liable for those sums if AEC fails to pay. The Authority separately ordered AEC to pay $2,250 in costs and a $71.56 filing fee, with all payments due within 28 days.
