ERA finds café owner's conduct 'ill‑advised' but not a breach of duty leading to resignation
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has rejected a Christchurch chef's claim that she was constructively dismissed from her job at a suburban café, finding that her employer's actions did not amount to a breach of duty serious enough to force her resignation.
The ERA found that the chef, who worked at a small Christchurch café, was neither constructively dismissed nor unjustifiably disadvantaged.
However, the ERA ordered the café to pay her $602 gross in unpaid wages for additional hours worked, including an underpayment tied to the Matariki public holiday.
Fractured relationship
The chef began working at the café in January 2024, having been attracted to the role by what she understood to be broad autonomy over the kitchen, menus, and ordering.
Over time, she became increasingly unhappy with the way the café's owner‑director exercised control over operational decisions, frequently changed her mind, and, according to the chef, failed to resolve tensions as they arose.
The relationship deteriorated through 2024, including a dispute over alleged cross‑contamination of gluten‑free food, disagreements about menus, and what the chef described as undermining behaviour and inappropriate comments.
Matters came to a head in October 2024 when the owner introduced newly designed menus that departed from work done by the chef and her son, and when the owner later referred in an email to the chef's husband's alleged involvement in another employee's employment relationship.
Although a meeting was scheduled for October 22, 2024, to address the chef's concerns, she resigned by email that morning with immediate effect, saying trust had been irreparably damaged and that her stress and anxiety had become too severe.
Breach not serious enough
The chef argued that a series of incidents, culminating in the October 2024 menu changes and the reference to her husband in the owner's emails, amounted to a breach of the employer’s duty of trust and confidence, making her resignation a reasonably foreseeable outcome.
The ERA disagreed. It accepted there had been tensions and disagreements, and that hospitality can be "inherently stressful," but held that the evidence did not show the café had breached its obligations.
"I accept that there were disagreements at various times during the employment relationship and that this caused frustration for both parties," the ERA said in its decision.
"Nevertheless, hospitality can be inherently stressful. An employer changing its mind or expressing frustration to an employee does not in and of itself amount to a breach of duty."
The Authority found that earlier incidents were either resolved, insufficiently detailed, not proven, or did not reach the threshold of a breach of duty.
It also noted that the owner had not known of any underpayment issue until after the employment ended, so any failure to pay additional hours could not underpin a constructive dismissal finding.
On the alleged "final straw," the ERA said the owner was entitled as business owner to make commercial decisions about menus, even if the chef disagreed or felt her autonomy had been undermined. The decision not to adopt her son's menu design was similarly characterised as a legitimate business choice, not a breach of duty.
The October 2024 emails, particularly the comments about the chef's husband, were described as "ill‑advised and unnecessary," and the Authority accepted that the chef's upset was understandable.
"Nevertheless, [the owner's] comments did not meet the threshold of a breach of duty," the ERA said. The email comments also did "not amount to the final straw in a successful constructive dismissal claim."
The Authority held that the chef's resignation was not reasonably foreseeable from the employer's conduct.
"Whilst [the owner] often disagreed with [the chef], communications remained respectful and were directed towards addressing and rectifying issues rather than ignoring them," the Authority noted.
Costs were reserved, with the ERA encouraging the parties to resolve the issue between themselves.
