Cafe worker awarded $9000 for a day's work by ERA

Thursday, 7 February 2019

A cafe worker has been awarded $9000 for a day's work by Employment Relations Authority.

A Wellington woman who worked for one day at a cafe without pay, has been awarded $9000 by the Employment Relations Authority.

Helen Mawhinney completed a day's work at a cafe run by Sfizio Limited after a promising interview, but was told at the end of the shift all her work was part of an unpaid trial.

Mawhinney was interviewed by Sfizio's directors Kathy Parfitt and Curtis Gregorash on August 4, where she made three coffees for the directors to sample and at the end of the meeting was invited to come to one of their cafes.

The next day Mawhinney worked from 8am till 4pm for Sfizio and also got a lunch break but was told at the end of the shift it was all unpaid.

* What the upcoming employment law changes actually mean

* Australian woman wins A$1 million payout over workplace bullying**

Upset by that, Mawhinney decided to decline a job offer from Sfizio and demanded she be paid for the day as she had not agreed to do unpaid work.

In an email one of the directors Gregorash apologised for the misunderstanding and said the company did not consider her an employee the day she worked and did not pay for trials.

During the Employment Relations Authority's hearing, Gregorash accepted that arrangements around Mawhinney's attendance at the cafe on August 4 had not been recorded in writing.

But Mawhinney told the authority that at the end of the interview Parfitt told her she was 'exactly what we are looking for' and that they could 'give you 30 hours per week but the work might be stretched between the two cafes.'

Mawhinney claimed Parfitt asked her to work a full shift when she asked her to come to the cafe the day after the interview and believed this meant she had gotten the job.

Authority member Michele Ryan said she preferred the evidence given by Mawhinney, and was not satisfied that those matters surrounding the August 4 shift were conveyed to Mawhinney by Sfizio.

Ryan said Sfizio's resolute refusal to pay Mawhinney wages for the work she performed was a breach of the fundamental term of any employment relationship; that wages are paid in exchange for work.

'I find it was reasonable of her to reject its offer of re-employment where she no longer trusted Sfizio to act as a fair and reasonable employer.'

Ryan said the line between Mawhinney participating in a competency assessment and having her engage in work was crossed, and that work performed by Mawhinney contributed to the business and provided it with an economic benefit.

Mawhinney was awarded $7000 in compensation because of the distress the situation caused her.

She was also awarded $119 in wages for the day she worked and $1890 in lieu of four weeks notice because she was considered an employee at the end of the interview, even though an employment agreement was not signed.