Good faith? Director allegedly yelled during meeting to discuss dispute
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case involving a restaurant manager who resigned from her position after a dispute over her work schedule.
The case highlights the complexities of workplace negotiations and the importance of maintaining good faith in employment relationships.
It serves as a reminder for employers to handle workplace disputes professionally and for employees to carefully consider their contractual obligations before taking unilateral action.
Background of the dispute
The worker had been employed in various front-of-house roles by the employer, a company operating five 'Lonestar' restaurants. She was most recently employed as a restaurant manager from June 2022 to April 2023.
The dispute arose when the worker requested to change her work schedule from five days to four days per week, maintaining the same total hours of 40-45 per week.
The worker had a long history with the employer, having started working for them as a teenager. She had previously been able to negotiate some flexibility in her schedule, including alternating weekend days off with her second-in-command.
However, the employer said that the restaurant manager role was considered more senior and had different expectations. The worker believed she could unilaterally change her availability based on her interpretation of her individual employment agreement (IEA).
She relied on a clause that stated:
"Your rostered hours will be governed by your Advice of Availability you have provided at the commencement of your employment. If you wish to vary your Advice of Availability you must do so in writing to the Employer."
However, the employer disagreed with this interpretation, arguing that the restaurant manager role required a five-day work week and that any change would need to be negotiated.
Employer's response and subsequent negotiations
The employer initially proposed a trial of four days, but with conditions that the worker found unacceptable. They expressed concerns about the risk of burnout if the same hours were condensed into four days. The employer's letter stated:
"[The employer] then responded that five days was a requirement of the role and did not repeat the four day proposal that [the worker] had rejected. It did not agree with [the worker's] interpretation of her IEA that the change was not a variation that required negotiation."
This response led to further disagreements and ultimately culminated in a meeting on 6 March 2023, which became a central point of contention in the case.
The parties’ meeting
The 6 March meeting was described very differently by the two parties. The worker claimed that one of the directors became aggressive, yelling and pointing his finger at her. The employer denied this characterisation but admitted to raising voices due to frustration.
The meeting occurred in the context of ongoing negotiations, with the worker having already engaged legal representation and proposing mediation. The employer's director expressed dissatisfaction with the worker's lawyer's communication and stated he would not mediate.
The worker resigned later that evening, citing the meeting as the final straw. In her resignation email, she wrote:
"I had hoped that we could have found a more constructive and respectful way to discuss my concerns about my hours. Instead, I was shaken and upset by how [the director] started raising his voice at me throughout the meeting."
The ERA's findings
The ERA found that while there was no constructive dismissal, the employer's actions during the 6 March meeting constituted a breach of good faith. The Authority stated:
"I find that the behaviour of the directors for [the employer] in the 6 March 2023 meeting, particularly through [the director], understandingly resulted in what [the worker] described in her resignation email as [being] shaken and upset."
This breach was deemed to have disadvantaged the worker in her employment. The ERA explained:
"I find that [the worker's] condition of employment to have her employer communicate with her constrictively to maintain the employment relationship disadvantaged her to the extent that she was likely so distressed she had to take sick leave rather than working out her notice."
The ERA considered the worker's long association with the employer and the emotional impact of the dispute. It was noted that the worker had enjoyed her role and was dedicated to it, making the confrontational meeting particularly distressing.
As a result of these findings, the ERA awarded the worker $10,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings. The Authority emphasised:
"An employer ought not to behave in a way that makes an employee feel they are belittled and being pushed into a corner to accept their employers point of view."
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining professional and respectful communication in the workplace, especially during disputes. It also highlights the need for clear contractual terms and mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities in employment relationships.
