Café operators failed to fairly investigate concerns, then summarily dismissed both chefs within hours of each other
The owners of a popular Auckland waterfront café have been ordered to pay nearly $100,000 to a husband-and-wife chef team, after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found their dismissals were unjustified and followed a flawed process.
The ERA found that the company operating the café unjustifiably dismissed its head chef and sous chef in June 2024, and failed to meet the legal standard of what a "fair and reasonable employer" could do in the circumstances.
The couple, who had both worked at the café under a previous owner, stayed on when the business was sold to new proprietors in mid-2023.
Under the new regime, a general manager and store manager were installed, and tensions soon developed between the head chef and the store manager over control of the kitchen, ordering of supplies, food wastage, and communication.
Head chef's dismissal
The Authority heard that the dismissals were the result of tensions which developed between the head chef and the store manager over their respective expectations and views on the operation of the café.
According to the ERA, the head chef raised concerns over several months about the store manager's conduct, including an incident where she hit him on the back during a dispute over rubbish and recycling, and what he described as bullying and exclusion at work.
He also complained about interference in supplier orders and issues with public holiday pay.
Matters came to a head in June 2024, when the head chef emailed the general manager saying he would not work that weekend because of bullying that had caused "severe anxiety and stress" and affected his mental health, and asked for an urgent meeting.
The manager replied by email that if he wanted to take the weekend off "to look for a new job" that leave would be approved.
And instead of meeting with the head chef as requested, the company spoke only to the store manager and several staff over the weekend.
On Sunday evening, the general manager emailed a letter summarily terminating the head chef's employment with immediate effect.
The letter alleged dishonesty, misconduct, and refusal to comply with reasonable instructions, citing claims that he had tried to get a junior chef to resign, thrown away "good food" without recording it, and failed to follow management directions "to create a healthy working environment."
The ERA was critical of this approach. It found the employer's defence "fell at the first hurdle of the test of justification."
"It failed to sufficiently investigate its allegations, specifically by not providing [the head chef] with any opportunity to respond to those concerns," the ERA ruled.
"Those defects in its process meant it could not meet the requirements of the statutory test of justification to show its decision to dismiss him was done fairly or for good reasons."
Sous chef's dismissal
Within minutes of sending the dismissal email to the head chef, the general manager wrote to the sous chef – the head chef's spouse – calling her to a meeting the following afternoon, even though she was not rostered on.
When she queried the purpose and said she would attend during her normal working hours the next day, he replied: "I am letting you go and pay you your 2 week notice. I was going to tell you in person but here we are."
In a later dismissal letter, the company accused her of failing to properly manage food in the cabinet, not reporting alleged waste by her husband, "colluding" to cause trouble at work, and being absent without explanation.
The ERA rejected these claims, finding they had not been properly put to her for comment before the decision was made, and that the allegations lacked "any reliable factual foundation."
"As submitted, the 'process' [the employer] followed in dismissing her was not merely flawed; it was non-existent," the ERA said.
"Objectively assessed, [the sous chef] was really dismissed because of the views [the employers] had formed about her husband, not any wrongdoing by her in her role."
Failure of good faith obligations
Both dismissals were found to breach the employer's statutory obligations of good faith and the requirement to investigate, raise concerns, allow a reasonable opportunity to respond, and genuinely consider explanations before taking disciplinary action.
The Authority also accepted evidence that the dismissals had serious financial and emotional consequences.
With both incomes cut off at once, the couple could no longer afford their rent and were forced to move in with family and borrow money to cover living costs. Medical evidence showed the head chef had required treatment and daily medication for work-related stress and anxiety over the following year.
The ERA awarded the head chef six months' lost wages, calculated at $40,000 based on his salary, plus $18,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.
The sous chef was awarded four months' lost wages, totalling $19,448 based on her hourly rate and hours of work, and $18,000 in compensation.
In total, the company must pay the couple $95,448.
