ERA dismisses 'final straw' claim after café chef walks out
A Christchurch café chef claimed constructive dismissal after resigning over menu changes and workplace tension, but the Employment Relations Authority disagreed.
In a determination issued on 27 March 2026, Authority Member William Fussey found that Candice Davies was not constructively dismissed by Space Next Limited, trading as Daydream Café. The café was, however, ordered to pay $602 in unpaid wages.
Davies commenced employment as a chef in January 2024, believing she had full control of the kitchen. The café's director, Xinxin Pan, maintained that as business owner she retained final decision-making power. That gap in expectations set the stage for what followed. The Authority noted that Davies' job description required her to oversee kitchen operations but fell short of granting decision-making power, and required her to understand and follow recipes rather than create them.
During her employment, Davies alleged Pan did not provide the promised autonomy, raised her voice, undermined her, made comments about her weight, caused her anxiety by constantly changing her mind, and failed to resolve issues. Pan denied the weight-related remarks and disputed several incidents.
On 6 September 2024, Davies walked out mid-shift after raising concerns about gluten-free cross-contamination. They met on 10 September 2024, both apologised, and reached a resolution. On 5 October 2024, Davies told Pan she had a job interview elsewhere. Pan asked for another chance but gave her blessing for Davies to move on. Davies stayed, partly fearing her departure could cost colleagues their jobs.
Things escalated in mid-October when Pan emailed updated menus with a design quite different from the one Davies' son had been paid to create, even though the content was substantially the same. A third seasonal menu Davies had worked on was also dropped. Davies texted: "I can't take the stress and anxiety anymore to be honest. I am so disappointed." She stopped attending work and requested a formal meeting with a support person.
A meeting was set for 22 October 2024. The day before, Pan emailed responses to Davies' concerns but also raised a matter about Davies' husband allegedly advising a colleague not to sign her employment agreement.
At 7.09am on 22 October 2024, hours before the meeting, Davies resigned. She wrote: "the stress of this situation has become too damaging to me. I genuinely wanted to work through things, and move forward, however after receiving your emails where you involved my husband, it crossed too many boundaries."
Pan apologised, offered to continue the employment on full-time or part-time terms, and offered 20 hours of additional pay as a goodwill gesture. Davies briefly indicated a willingness to return but the relationship could not be salvaged. She raised formal claims on 3 December 2024.
The Authority found no breach of duty by the café. Pan's menu decisions were within her rights as business owner, and her emails, while ill-advised and unnecessary regarding Davies' husband, did not meet the threshold. The Authority found the resignation was not reasonably foreseeable, given a meeting had been scheduled for the very next day, and that Pan's communications were directed towards addressing and rectifying issues rather than ignoring them.
On the wages claim, Davies sought payment for 124 hours of work from home, revised down from an initial 140 hours. The Authority found her estimates lacked contemporaneous records and appeared excessive, awarding 21.5 hours: eight for pre-employment work, eight for menu development, four for ordering, and 1.5 for a Matariki public holiday underpayment. The total came to $602 gross. The Authority also treated the café's own offer of 20 hours at resignation as a tacit acknowledgement that some hours had gone unremunerated.
The unjustified disadvantage claim failed too. Davies had not raised unpaid wages during her employment, and the café had not been given a proper opportunity to address the issue.
The case underscores the importance of job descriptions that clearly delineate decision-making authority, robust time-recording systems for remote work, and structured resolution processes when workplace conflict reaches a critical point.
