He was told to "grow the fuck up" and pack his tools
An Auckland mechanic has been awarded more than $97,000 after a workplace campaign of harassment, botched discipline and systematic underpayment.
The Employment Relations Authority found that And Or Enterprises Ltd, trading as Auto Super Shoppe Mayne Automotive, unjustifiably dismissed the worker and disadvantaged him through a pattern of conduct stretching across months.
The October 27 determination detailed isolation from colleagues, abusive language from management, and a disciplinary process the Authority found fell well short of what a fair and reasonable employer would do. The employer did not appear at the hearing.
Mayne Automotive had not filed a statement in reply, did not attend a case management conference, and was absent from the investigation meeting - despite being warned the Authority could rule without hearing from it.
Asked to spy on a supervisor
The worker, an experienced mechanic, joined the Onehunga-based business in 2021. For most of his employment he worked 7am to 5pm on weekdays with alternating Saturdays.
In around March 2025, the business owner asked him to monitor a colleague who held the role of foreman - reporting back on matters such as how long the colleague slept during lunch breaks and how long he spent in the bathroom during work hours. The worker was uncomfortable but felt he had no choice, given the instruction came from the owner.
The arrangement ran for two or three months. It predictably damaged the worker's relationship with the colleague, who began accusing the worker of leaving the workshop door unlocked at night. The accusations escalated. The worker started asking family members to watch him lock up or film him doing so.
That tension came to a head on April 3, 2025, when the colleague confronted the worker about the doors, yelling at him in front of customers. The worker left at lunchtime, saw his doctor, and was certified unfit to work until April 21.
His lawyers wrote to the employer the next day, describing a toxic culture and requesting two things: that the colleague stop dealing with the worker directly on performance or honesty matters, and that a promised pay rise be implemented.
There was no response.
"DO NOT START"
When the worker returned from medical leave, he found a sign reading "DO NOT START" propped against his toolbox on his desk. He believed it had been moved from a car he had been working on and placed there deliberately. He asked management to check the CCTV footage. They refused.
From there, things deteriorated. The Authority accepted the worker's description of the owner and her son running the workshop "like a school yard" - setting staff against each other so they would compete and report on one another.
Over May and June 2025, the worker described a string of incidents: his toolbox moved from its usual spot without his agreement; a colleague told not to speak to him; an apprentice instructed to seek help from someone else instead of him; his access to a hoist blocked by cars parked in front of his work bay with no one claiming responsibility.
When he texted the owner to say he needed to collect his stepdaughter and her baby from hospital, he was told he would have to use annual leave rather than sick leave because, the owner said, he was "not the biological father." The worker texted back that she was his daughter - he had cared for her since she was born.
The Authority found this pattern amounted to harassment and that the employer bore responsibility for it. The worker had been unjustifiably disadvantaged.
A disciplinary process in name only
On about June 9, the owner called the worker into a meeting - despite being on notice that he was legally represented - to discuss an allegation of sexual harassment. A manager said they had a video of the worker exposing himself to a colleague. The worker asked to see the video. They refused. He was pressed to sign a written warning. He refused.
The Authority heard the underlying incident related to workplace horseplay with a panel beater some time earlier. There was no indication the panel beater was upset or had made a complaint. The worker believed the allegation was being dredged up to build a case against him.
On around June 25, the worker was pressured to accept blame for a Warrant of Fitness (WOF) sticker not placed on a vehicle. He pointed out that only qualified WOF inspectors could apply those stickers, and he was not one of them. He was told he was "full of shit."
The owner then followed him around the workshop with a document to sign - a piece of paper folded almost in half so only a signature strip was visible at the bottom. When the worker refused to sign without consulting his lawyer, the Authority found the owner told him to "grow the fuck up," called him a "cry-baby" and a "disgrace," asked him "are you on drugs, is that why you're not getting it?" and told him to "pack your tools up and leave."
His lawyers emailed the owner at 10:29am that morning, asking whether the worker was being directed to go home. No response came.
The next day, a letter appeared on his toolbox headed "Preliminary Decision of Disciplinary Meeting about Potential Serious Misconduct." It referred to meetings the Authority found were never actually arranged with the worker's lawyers. The letter stated his employment "will be terminated effective immediately" while simultaneously inviting him to provide comments by 10am the following day.
His lawyers wrote back. The allegations had come as a complete surprise. No reply came. The worker was never invited to return. His final payslip arrived on July 1, 2025.
The Authority found the dismissal unjustifiable. The performance issues raised appeared to concern a worker who had been employed without performance concerns for four years. The employer had ignored repeated requests to communicate through the worker's lawyer, pursued him with abusive language, and tried to have him sign a document whose contents were hidden from him.
The bill
The Authority awarded six months' lost wages at $3,777.75 gross per fortnight, totalling $50,999.63. Since his dismissal, the worker had applied for dozens of jobs without success. He described the period as a "real low point" that contributed to his marriage breaking down, though he and his wife later undertook counselling.
Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings was set at $25,000. Medical evidence showed a diagnosis of anxiety with depression following the workplace bullying.
Chartered accountant Joel Ram provided evidence that the worker had been systematically underpaid throughout his employment. Clock-in records showed he regularly worked 9.5 hours or more per day but was paid for nine. Annual and sick leave had been debited on days the records showed him working. The Authority accepted the accountant's assessment of $14,667.17 in wage arrears.
A penalty of $3,600 was imposed for breaches of the Wages Protection Act, the Holidays Act, and the employment agreement's rest break provisions - half payable to the worker and half to the Crown. The Authority found that at least substantial aspects of the underpayment arrangements were intentional.
With costs of $3,375 and disbursements of $1,382.55, the total award came to just over $97,000.
For HR teams, the case reads like a catalogue of what not to do - from asking an employee to surveil a colleague and then failing to protect him, to running a disciplinary process that bypassed the worker's lawyer, hid documents, and ended with a letter that simultaneously fired him and invited his response.
