He moved cities, turned down another offer, and went to church with the boss
A law firm hired a newly graduated lawyer, failed to give him an employment agreement for four days, then paid him $1,200 to leave.
It cost the firm more than $20,000.
The Employment Relations Authority found the worker's dismissal from Shabani Law Limited was unjustified, ordering the Auckland firm to pay $5,509.74 gross in lost wages and $15,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, in a determination issued October 5, 2026.
The worker had completed a BA/LLB and was finishing his professional legal studies when he applied for a role the firm advertised on Student Job Search. The listing offered $24 an hour for 30 to 40 hours a week, covering criminal law, refugee law and immigration law.
After a phone call, a video call, and an in-person interview at the firm's East Tamaki office in March 2025, the worker felt the interview had gone well. The firm's sole director verbally offered to provide a contract that day, but the worker asked for time - he had another interview lined up.
Over the following days, the two spoke again. The worker's evidence was that he called to accept the offer on March 12, 2025, but the director pulled back, saying he needed to sort some things out. A second in-person meeting followed on March 17. The director asked about the worker's long-term intentions. The worker said he wanted to stay long-term and asked for an employment agreement.
That evening, the worker told friends and family he had accepted the job. Days later, he emailed the other firm and turned down its offer. He texted a friend about accommodation, writing "my employer would like me to start in April."
Then came a church visit. The director asked to attend the worker's Sunday service. Both men asked the pastor to pray for them and their proposed employment relationship. The director left thinking "it is done, we have found somebody."
But no employment agreement appeared. The worker messaged for updates on March 25 and 30. The director sent a voice note saying he would get back to him.
On April 1, 2025, after yet another in-person meeting, the director emailed: "We are pleased to offer you employment at Shabani Law to practice as an enrolled Barrister and Solicitor. Your employment will commence on Monday the 7th of April 2025."
The firm's office manager - the director's wife - then emailed requesting the worker's name, address, date of birth, bank account details and a completed tax form "for salary purposes." She told the Authority she would not have requested that information unless there was an employment contract and the director had instructed her to do so. The worker sent everything back that afternoon and moved to Auckland on April 5.
Four days that went sideways
On Monday April 7, the worker arrived at the office. He was shown around, given a desk, allocated a computer, and logged into a staff member's emails to get familiar with the firm's work. He asked about an employment agreement. The director said he would have it ready by that evening.
He did not.
On Tuesday, the worker asked again. The director asked whether the Ministry of Social Development had contacted him to sign it - a reference to a government wage subsidy the firm had applied for. The worker spent five or six hours reading the Immigration New Zealand operations manual and emails. Midway through the day, the director told him the firm was dropping criminal law and could only offer 30 hours a week. He also mentioned that most employees typically started by volunteering for a month.
On Wednesday, the worker called the government advisor first thing. No employment agreement had been sent through. Feeling panicky and distressed, the worker confronted the director, who repeated that employees at the firm typically volunteered for three to four weeks, then said he had been too busy to draft the agreement but would send one "right away."
What arrived was a hastily amended version of another employee's contract. The worker and his flatmate - who had HR experience - reviewed it that evening and found problems: the start date had been pushed to April 14, not April 7; the employer's KiwiSaver contributions were structured to come out of the worker's pay, which pushed the effective hourly rate below the minimum wage; weekly hours had no guarantee; and the position was listed as admin staff, not a legal role.
On Thursday morning, the worker raised the issues. The director refused to move on the hourly rate. The conversation turned to leaving.
The parties disagreed about who raised the idea first. The worker said the director gave him an ultimatum: work for three more weeks or take $1,200 and "we can stop wasting each other's time." The worker felt he had no real choice and reluctantly accepted.
The director drafted a departure letter on the worker's behalf - subject line "Request for Compensation for Relocation" - describing the $1,200 as covering four weeks' rent and related costs, and including a line saying the worker would not take the matter to the Authority. The worker signed and left.
"Volunteering" - with air quotes
Whether an employment relationship ever existed was the central dispute. The firm argued negotiations were still ongoing and the government wage subsidy was a precondition. The Authority disagreed.
It found there was likely an oral offer and acceptance by March 17, 2025 - and if not, then the April 1 email offering employment with an April 7 start date, followed by the office manager's request for bank and tax details, certainly established one. Under the Employment Relations Act, a "person intending to work" - someone who has been offered and accepted work as an employee - carries the same right to raise a grievance as someone already on the job.
The Authority accepted that the worker likely used the word "volunteering" with air quotes, in the context of the unresolved wage subsidy and the missing contract. Even if there had been some agreement to volunteer for a few days, he remained a person intending to work.
"Both options involved him finishing"
The Authority found the dismissal was unjustified. It held that the director more likely raised the idea of the worker leaving, and that offering a choice between three more weeks of work or a $1,200 payout amounted to what the law calls constructive dismissal - where the employer, not the employee, drives the termination, even though the employee technically agrees to go. Both options involved the employment ending.
The firm had failed to provide an employment agreement despite repeated promises, was not ready to have the worker doing billable work from the agreed start date, and moved to end the relationship when the worker raised legitimate concerns about his contract - rather than negotiating in good faith.
The departure letter was not treated as a bar to the worker's claim. It did not use "full and final settlement" language, did not specify what was being settled, and the firm itself did not argue it prevented the proceedings.
The toll
The Authority accepted that the experience had a significant impact. The worker had turned down another job offer in reliance on the role. His evidence described health issues with an existing condition worsening, stress, anxiety, loss of confidence, and his trust in the legal profession being damaged. His flatmate described him crying, feeling hopeless about his suitability for law, and withdrawing to his bedroom.
The $15,000 compensation award reflected that impact. Lost wages of $5,509.74 gross were calculated across a 13-week period, offset by the $1,200 already paid and reduced earnings from sporadic contract work the worker found afterwards.
No deduction was made for the worker's own conduct. The Authority found none was warranted.
For HR teams, the practical lesson is about what an employment agreement delay actually costs. Four days without a signed contract, a hastily amended document with minimum-wage problems, and a rushed decision to push a new hire out the door produced a liability north of $20,000 - before costs. Under the Employment Relations Act, a signed agreement is not required for an employment relationship to exist, and a person who has accepted a job offer carries the same rights as someone already working.
The determination was issued by the Employment Relations Authority on October 5, 2026. Costs were reserved.
