Employee confronted for missing cash from the market takings
A now-defunct Canterbury bakery has been ordered to pay a former employee $16,150 after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ruled that she was unjustifiably dismissed following accusations of theft.
The employee, who worked both in the bakery and at a weekend market stall, found herself at the centre of a workplace dispute in April 2024 after being confronted by her employer over missing cash from the market takings.
According to the ERA's findings, the employee was called into the bakery twice on her day off, where she was questioned about the shortfall and, in her view, accused of theft.
She was told the police might be called, and her suggestions for improving cash security were dismissed.
The employee denied any wrongdoing, explaining that both she and another staff member handled the cash box at the market and that unrecorded discounts were sometimes given to regular customers. She also claimed that her employer told others in their small town that she had stolen from the business, causing her further humiliation.
Following these confrontations, the employee did not return to work, believing she had been dismissed.
The employer, through its legal counsel, denied dismissing her and claimed the employee had left of her own accord. The bakery closed its doors several months later, and the company is now in the process of being removed from the Companies Register.
Was it unjustified dismissal?
In its determination, the ERA found that the employer had effectively dismissed the employee without following a fair process or substantiating the allegations against her.
"I find that on a fine balance, this was a situation where [the employer] dismissed [the employee] directly by sending her away," the ERA wrote.
"There being no fair process that could have allowed a substantive finding to support, I find the dismissal was unjustified."
The ERA was also critical of the informal and undocumented nature of the meetings, which took place on the employee's days off and left her feeling powerless and humiliated.
It further found that the employer's actions, such as calling the employee in twice, locking the bakery doors, and raising the prospect of police involvement, would reasonably lead an employee to believe they were no longer wanted at work.
While the employer denied that the employee was dismissed, the ERA found that subsequent communications, including a request for her to return her keys and ambiguous messages about her employment status, reinforced the impression that her employment had ended.
Compensation, lost wages awarded
The ERA awarded the employee $10,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings, noting the emotional and financial impact of the dismissal.
She was also awarded $6,150 in lost wages, representing the six weeks she was out of work before finding new employment.
The employee has since found a new job and is doing well, according to the ERA.
"I will consider the lost earnings… but for now I accept there was a human impact for some weeks after the dismissal in terms of financial stress and perhaps for some time later due to the human impact," the ERA said.
