Employees reportedly fired after meeting advocate to discuss rights
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has ruled in favour of several employees from a Wellington nail salon, ordering compensation for unjustified dismissals and breaches of good faith.
In a series of decisions handed down in February, the ERA determined that the dismissals of several employees at a nail salon run by Ngoc Tuyet Uyen Huynh were unjustified, and the employees were entitled to compensation for lost wages and hurt and humiliation.
The employees, all of whom were recruited from Vietnam, were dismissed under the premise of a 90-day trial period, which the ERA ruled was invalid due to procedural errors and breaches of the Employment Relations Act.
The employees involved in the case were recruited by Huynh to work at her nail salon in Wellington.
However, upon arrival in New Zealand, the employees, including Thi Kim Cuc Nguyen, Thi Kim Chung Nguyen, Thi Lien Nguyen, and others, found themselves working under difficult conditions.
They were required to work long hours, perform additional tasks outside their original job descriptions, such as massage, waxing, and hair washing, and were paid below what they had been promised.
The situation escalated when some of the workers attended a meeting hosted by a Vietnamese advocate to discuss their rights under New Zealand employment law. They asked for certain changes, including wage payments into a bank account, tax accounting, and the ability to refuse inappropriate client requests. Following this meeting, they were all dismissed.
Huynh argued that the dismissals were due to performance issues, but the workers contended they were fired for raising legitimate concerns about their working conditions.
Several workers sought advice from legal advocates, and their cases were submitted to the ERA. The legal team representing the workers advised that their claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay would be pursued through the Labour Inspectorate.
The ERA found that the dismissals were unjustified and that the 90-day trial periods invoked by Huynh were invalid. It also concluded that the dismissals failed to comply with statutory requirements for notice and the provision of a fair process.
Additionally, the authority further ruled that the employees had suffered unjustified disadvantages, including excessive working hours, unpaid wages, and unreasonably forced duties beyond their original job descriptions.
The ERA noted that the employees had been pressured to perform additional tasks such as massages and waxing without proper training or consent, which led to physical injuries for some.
As part of the remedy, the ERA awarded compensation for lost wages and for the emotional distress caused by the dismissals, with the employees to receive between $27,000 and $37,000 each. The compensation was granted under section 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act, which allows for remedies in cases where the dismissal is found to be unjustified.
The tribunal also addressed the breaches of good faith, including the employer's failure to follow proper procedures and to communicate transparently with the workers about their employment conditions.
