She replied with a thumbs-up. The cafe said that rewrote her whole contract
A thumbs-up emoji was not enough to rewrite a worker's employment contract - and a cafe owner's failure to follow basic dismissal process has now cost more than $11,000.
The Employment Relations Authority ruled on November 10, 2026 that a young Auckland cafe worker was unjustifiably dismissed after her employer quietly dropped her from the roster and replaced her - without a conversation, a warning, or any process at all.
The worker had been employed front of house at a cafe operated by Anthony and Emily Limited (A&EL) in early 2025. She had recently finished school and was looking for work before starting further study. After an interview and a trial shift, she was offered the role, with agreed hours of 25 to 35 per week across three to four days.
Things went sideways quickly.
The worker told the Authority she received very little formal training, instead learning by watching other staff and asking questions. She described being yelled at during shifts, having eyes rolled at her when she asked questions, and being physically jabbed in the shoulder and back with a finger to make her move faster. She said this behaviour continued across multiple shifts and that some customers commented on how she was being treated.
A&EL saw it differently. The employer pointed to smiley-face emojis the worker used in text messages as evidence she was not unhappy. The Authority ultimately found the evidence was insufficient to establish a disadvantage grievance on these matters.
The real trouble started in early April 2025. The worker messaged her manager to say she would be unavailable for six days because she was house-sitting and the commute would be difficult. What followed was a text exchange in which the manager told her she had been "put on casual," could not be guaranteed hours, and would only get shifts on a best-efforts basis.
The worker asked if she could return to normal hours after the week away. The response: "I'm not guarantee. I only can say I can try, not guarantee."
She replied with a thumbs-up emoji.
A&EL later argued that emoji amounted to the worker agreeing to a fundamental change in her employment terms - from guaranteed minimum hours to casual, no-guarantee work.
The Authority was not persuaded. It found the manager's explanation of the proposed change was "unclear and insufficient in light of the significant change it represented to the employment." A thumbs-up emoji, sent in response to a vague and poorly explained text message, did not constitute a valid variation of the employment agreement. The worker remained entitled to her contracted minimum of 25 hours per week.
Then came the roster.
On April 12, 2025, a new schedule was released and the worker's name was nowhere on it. She messaged her manager asking why. The reply was blunt: A&EL had hired someone else full-time to replace her because she "always be like something else to do."
When the worker pressed the point, the manager's response was simply: "Yes sorry."
The worker raised unjustified dismissal. The manager replied that no reason was needed because the worker was still within her 90-day trial period.
That defence collapsed too. Under New Zealand's Employment Relations Act 2000, a trial period only works if the employment agreement is signed before work begins. Here, the agreement had been sent a day or two before the worker's first shift - but was not signed until March 1, 2025, after she had already completed around three shifts. The Authority found A&EL could not rely on the trial period to block the worker's claim.
With neither the casual variation nor the trial period available as defences, the Authority assessed whether the dismissal was justified. It found A&EL had never raised concerns about the worker's availability or performance, never warned her that her role was at risk, never gave her information to respond to, and never offered her a chance to be heard before the decision was made.
The worker submitted that a fair process was "wholly absent in the circumstances." The Authority accepted that submission. The defects in A&EL's process were significant and resulted in the worker being treated unfairly. The dismissal was clearly unjustified.
On remedies, the Authority awarded $3,578.29 in lost wages, calculated at the worker's rate of $23.50 per hour for 25 hours per week over 10 weeks, less earnings from alternative employment she found by mid-2025. It awarded $7,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings, plus $587.50 for the one week's notice the employer failed to provide. The total came to $11,165.79.
A&EL's push for a reduction in remedies based on the worker's alleged contribution was rejected. The Authority noted the concerns cited for her dismissal - availability and attendance - had never actually been raised with her.
For HR teams, the case is a compact checklist of basics: trial periods only hold up if the agreement is signed before day one, a text message and an emoji do not safely vary an employment contract, and removing someone from a roster without a conversation is a dismissal - and an unjustified one at that.
