A chef thrilled about returning to work after battling a serious illness was devastated when she was dismissed weeks after starting. Photo / 123RF
A chef thrilled about returning to work after battling a serious illness was devastated when she was dismissed weeks after starting. Photo / 123RF
A woman thrilled to have rejoined the workforce after battling a serious illness was devastated to be dismissed just weeks after she was taken on as head chef at a cafe.
Tracy Taite has now successfully challenged the decision to end her employment under the 90-day trial clause and has been awarded $20,000 in compensation.
Taite was employed as a head chef at a cafe in Havelock North from January 10, 2021, to February 21, 2021, when she was dismissed.
Her former employer, businessman Joga Singh Chamber, also known as Jimmy, was the sole director and shareholder of J and R (2019) Limited, which traded as the Village Green Cafe.
Efforts by NZME to contact Chamber revealed he no longer owned the cafe and it was now under new management. Attempts were also made to contact Taite.
The reasons for the dismissal centred on allegations Taite had wasted food, that customers had complained about her, and that she made a cake at work for a family member and left the oven on all night.
Baking a birthday cake for a family member was one reason Tracy Taite's former employer felt justified in sacking her. Photo / 123RF
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) heard the claim and said it was Taite’s first job after a “significant period of time out of the workforce” due to serious health issues.
ERA member Sarah Kennedy-Martin said in her decision, released on May 30, that Taite had been thrilled about the prospect of returning to fulltime work in a role that she thoroughly enjoyed as it represented a fresh start.
Taite’s evidence was that her mental health went downhill very quickly when told her employment was ending.
“She never expected her job to end so suddenly after such a short period of time,” Kennedy-Martin said.
“She felt she was doing well and had positive feedback.”
Taite’s health declined from what she described as a humiliating experience, and she had to seek medical assistance to cope with the situation she found herself in.
In a letter on February 21 from the employer, who pointed out concerns over “continued food wastage”, Taite was reminded of a final warning issued a couple of weeks earlier and told her job would end on March 3.
Taite told the ERA she was unaware of concerns about wastage, except when she made a slice that did not work out.
On another occasion, she was told not to put garnish on the food because that was a “waste of product”.
Taite said she was not told about any complaints about the food, or the issue with the birthday cake.
She argued her dismissal was unjustified because the 90-day clause could not be relied on, and if she was incorrect about that and her dismissal was for misconduct, none of the issues set out in the letter were raised with her or investigated.
She had no knowledge of the final warning referred to in the email dismissing her, the ERA said.
It was the employer’s view that Taite was rightfully dismissed under the 90-day trial clause and therefore an unjustified disadvantage or dismissal claim was “unwarranted”.
The ERA ultimately found that the trial period could not be relied on by Village Green to justify the dismissal, because by the time Taite signed not one, but two employment agreements, she was by then already an employee. Only new employees could be subject to a trial period.
Taite responded to the dismissal letter by saying that for health reasons, due to upcoming surgery, she would not be working out her notice.
The employer did not respond, after which Taite raised a personal grievance.
Despite efforts to encourage the employer to take part in the process, the ERA said apart from it lodging a statement in reply earlier in the process, Chamber indicated he would not be attending the investigation meeting.
The ERA told him it may, without hearing the evidence from the business, issue a determination in favour of the applicant.
Kennedy-Martin concluded that the decisions made were not what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
She said it was more likely that the business relied on the trial period as the basis for the dismissal, and it was also unlikely that the matters raised were serious enough to justify dismissal even if the correct process was followed.
