Long‑serving chef discovers Facebook ad seeking a 'long‑term chef' at her workplace while overseas, sparking an ERA claim.
A long-serving chef of a hospitality employer who found that she lost her job through a recruitment post on Facebook has been declared unjustifiably dismissed by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).
The ERA noted that the chef, who had worked at the restaurant for about 14 years in total and for the current employer since 2022, was treated as a seasonal, fixed‑term employee whose work ended each winter.
The employer initially defended the claim on the basis that the chef was employed on a fixed‑term agreement and that her employment ended by mutual agreement in May 2024 when she was told the business was being marketed for sale.
But the ERA rejected that position, recording that the fixed‑term agreements were never signed and did not comply with the Employment Relations Act 2000. The employer ultimately "accepted [the employee] must be treated as a permanent employee."
"In short, the evidence does not support the position there was mutual agreement [the employee's] employment would come to an end in May 2024 at the start of the seasonal close down," the determination said, finding that the chef "could reasonably have an expectation of ongoing employment after the winter shut down" given the established work pattern.
Facebook ad and the effective dismissal
While overseas during the 2024 winter closure, the chef had not been clearly told that her job was over.
Having heard nothing from one of the owners, she searched online and saw the restaurant had been listed for sale. She then discovered a May 2024 Facebook post on the restaurant's page advertising for a chef.
The post stated that the owners were looking for "a long term chef to join their kitchen."
It also described the seasonal close‑down and offered accommodation with the role – terms that mirrored the chef's own position and on‑site living arrangements.
In August 2024, the chef messaged one of the owners on WhatsApp asking when she should start back at work.
The employer's evidence showed a reply on August 12 that they were dealing with another potential buyer and: "Think we are fine for staff now."
The ERA found that whether the owner had not replied at all, or replied to say staff were already sufficient, the effect was the same: it signalled there was no job for the chef to return to.
"I find that [the employer] made it clear [the employee] was dismissed on or about 12 August 2024 after [her] WhatsApp message and after she discovered the post and message … regarding a vacancy for a chef at the restaurant," the determination states. A personal grievance was lodged in the same month, which the ERA held was within the statutory 90‑day timeframe.
Unjustified dismissal
The ERA concluded that the employer failed to act as a fair and reasonable employer in all the circumstances.
The company had operated on the mistaken assumption that a fixed‑term agreement had simply ended and did not carry out any proper process before ending the chef's employment.
"Because [the employer] was working on the basis the fixed term agreement had come to an end the usual steps an employer takes before dismissal did not occur," the ERA said.
"In these circumstances [the employer] has not been able to provide a justification for [the employee's] dismissal and I find [the employee] was unjustifiably dismissed."
The ERA awarded the chef $12,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, as well as $14,000 in lost wages, equivalent to about two months’ remuneration, and ordered payment of any outstanding annual holiday arrears.
