Employer unable to provide CCTV footage to support alleged misconduct claims
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found that a student worker was owed three days' wages from a fast food franchise operator who claimed the worker had only completed a two-hour trial and was dismissed for allegedly harassing a female staff member.
The worker claimed he worked 16 hours over three days at a burger franchise in November 2024 but was not paid after the employer accused him of inappropriate conduct.
The franchise operator denied that the worker had worked the claimed hours and alleged harassment occurred, but was unable to produce CCTV footage to support the allegations.
Employment circumstances and disputed work period
The worker was an Indian citizen studying full-time for a post-graduate qualification in Auckland and living with his brother in West Auckland.
He learned of a potential job vacancy at the franchise through his brother's friend, who provided the franchise operator's mobile number.
The worker telephoned the franchise operator on 26 November 2024 for a 22-second conversation, after which he claimed he was instructed to attend the store at 11:00 a.m. the following day.
The worker alleged he worked for the franchise operator for 16 hours across three days: 4.5 hours on Wednesday, 27 November, 6 hours on Thursday, 28 November, and 5.5 hours on Friday, 29 November 2024.
The franchise operator denied that most of this work had occurred, maintaining the worker had only worked for two hours on Friday, 29 November 2024, as a trial before being dismissed for allegedly harassing a female staff member.
The operator claimed the worker had lied about the extent of his work and denied driving him home on Thursday evening, as the worker alleged.
Evidence assessment and credibility findings
The ERA noted the franchise operator had agreed during case management to provide CCTV footage covering the disputed period, but later claimed the footage was unavailable as it was overwritten after two months when storage devices became full.
The Authority found this explanation difficult to accept, noting a reasonable employer would have preserved such footage if it contained evidence of alleged misconduct.
The worker provided Auckland Transport bus card transaction records showing his travel from West Auckland to the franchise location at times consistent with his claimed work schedule.
The ERA found this reliable evidence, noting the worker had no other reason to be in that area as his education provider was located elsewhere in Auckland.
The worker described various tasks, including food preparation, cooking, serving customers, and opening the store using a combination padlock code.
The franchise operator disputed some details but acknowledged the existence of the padlock and its passcode, which the ERA found the worker would not have known unless he had worked there.
The Authority considered the worker's account of his duties plausible for fast food work.
Wage arrears determination and compensation
The ERA concluded the worker had worked 16 hours over the three-day period at the applicable minimum wage rate of $23.15 per hour, ordering the franchise operator to pay $370.40 in gross wage arrears.
The Authority noted that temporary visa holders have the same minimum employment rights as New Zealand workers.
The ERA rejected any application of training minimum wage rates, finding no employment agreement existed that would require the worker to undertake formal training as part of an industry training programme.
The Authority ordered payment by 30 September 2025 and did not award interest, given the modest amount involved.
The ERA found the worker was not unjustifiably dismissed but had resigned of his own accord.
However, the Authority determined he was unjustifiably disadvantaged by the franchise operator's treatment, which was described as demeaning, unnecessary and amounting to bullying across multiple days of employment.
Personal grievance and final orders
The ERA accepted evidence about the emotional impact on the worker, noting this was his first job in New Zealand and that being verbally abused and threatened by his employer caused unnecessary stress and anxiety.
The Authority found the emotional harm fell within the first category of compensation but required a significant reduction given the brief 16-hour employment period.
The ERA awarded $2,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation under section 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act, with no deduction for contribution.
The Authority found no evidence that the worker had contributed to his personal grievance, particularly given the absence of CCTV footage to demonstrate any alleged harassment behavior.
The total award comprised $370.40 in wage arrears, $2,000 compensation, and $71.55 reimbursement of the filing fee, all payable by 30 September 2025.
The ERA noted both parties represented themselves with no legal costs incurred, so costs would lie where they fell.
