Authority highlights important lessons on workplace communication
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case involving a young worker who claimed he was constructively dismissed from his role. The worker alleged that he faced unfavourable treatment by managers who yelled at him and treated him in a humiliating manner.
The worker also claimed he was misled about available working hours. Despite indicating his availability for additional work, he was repeatedly denied extra hours while the employer continued to advertise new positions. He raised these concerns in a formal meeting but felt the issues weren't adequately addressed.
After approximately nine months of employment, the worker resigned, claiming he felt compelled to do so due to the ongoing issues. He argued that his employer's actions breached good faith obligations and amounted to constructive dismissal.
The worker began his employment with the Hell's Pizza franchise in April 2023 as a permanent part-time kitchen staff member with a minimum of six hours work per week. At the time, he was 16 years old and enrolled in a tertiary food and beverage course. During his interview, he mentioned he would be applying for a restricted driver's licence in six months to enable pizza delivery work.
His employment agreement specified that his "usual hours of work shall be 6 hours, over Monday to Sunday." The ERA noted these provisions might not comply with section 67D of the Employment Relations Act 2000, as they were ambiguous about availability requirements.
Wage records showed the worker's hours averaged 8.99 per week. The franchise owner stated it was their practice to offer minimum hours that would increase as workers gained more skills or became qualified for delivery work.
After a few months, the worker began having disagreements with two managers while learning to make pizzas. He claimed one manager frequently yelled at him in a humiliating way, though he admitted he sometimes struggled with making pizzas with multiple ingredients.
In November, an incident occurred where the worker was reprimanded for exceeding his portion of a free staff meal. When told the cost would be deducted from his pay, the worker questioned the legality of this deduction and was told "it was illegal to steal food." This upset the worker, and the store manager suggested he go home for the day.
Following this incident, the worker and his father met with the franchise owner. They discussed the management style concerns and the worker's request for additional hours. The employer acknowledged they would advise managers to use a kinder approach when interacting with the worker.
After the November meeting, the worker's hours increased slightly during a busy period. He received some delivery work, limited by his restricted licence not allowing him to work after 10pm. When his hours later dropped back, he began looking for another job.
The worker noticed job advertisements posted by the employer online. He was confused why new positions were advertised when his requests for more hours were denied. The franchise owner later explained these jobs required a full driver's licence, as the store closed around 11pm on weekends.
The worker resigned in January 2024, giving one week's notice without stating a reason. He immediately started full-time work as a car groomer. The ERA found that the worker "resolved to leave [the employer] due to his dissatisfaction with the working environment and a desire to obtain a position with a more favourable allocation of guaranteed working hours."
The ERA applied the legal test for constructive dismissal: whether the resignation was caused by a breach of duty by the employer, and if so, whether that breach was serious enough that the employer could reasonably foresee the worker would resign.
The ERA also considered the duty of good faith, which requires that an employer should not "without proper cause, act in a manner calculated to or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the parties to the employment relationship."
After reviewing all circumstances, the Authority stated: "I do not conclude [the worker] was the subject of ongoing breaches of a serious enough nature, objectively causative of his resignation." They acknowledged the issues were significant from his perspective but found they "were adequately addressed at the 21 November meeting."
The ERA dismissed both the constructive dismissal and unjustified disadvantage claims. On good faith obligations, the Authority found the worker "was not misled about his hours of work as apart from the restrictive provisions of his employment agreement, there were explained and legitimate reasons why he was not allocated additional hours of work."
The Authority observed the worker "struggled with taking criticism" but attributed this to "[the worker's] age and relative inexperience."
They noted being "impressed by [the worker] in giving evidence, that he has an insight on this and is working on how he can in future, best cope in demanding working environments."
While ruling against the worker, the ERA identified issues with the employment agreement regarding availability provisions.
The Authority recommended the employer amend their agreements to "remove reference to 'usual hours of work' as an imprecise term and replace with a suitably precise term" and ensure availability requirements be confined to agreed or guaranteed hours of work.
This case highlights the importance of clear employment agreements, particularly regarding minimum hours and availability requirements.
