She told the ERA it was stressful trying to find another job around Christmas, when she was dismissed, and embarrassing having to ask her parents to borrow money.
The 21-year-old started the job as a dog supervisor in July 2021, and was subject to a 90-day trial.
But the Covid-19 lockdown in August 2021 meant the centre was shut until October, when the country moved into alert level 3 and pooches and the public could return.
When Finnigan returned to work at DogHQ, company director Ilse Snyman asked if she would extend her 90-day trial period for a further 90-days.
Finnigan agreed, responding by email.
“Yes, that’s completely fine!”
However, she said she wasn’t told she had the right to seek independent advice about the trial extension.
Snyman gave evidence saying she sought legal advice about the extension from an online service called Just Answer and received advice from a person named in the decision as Lisa. That person’s profile said: “Hi I am Lisa and I’ve been an attorney for 21 years”.
Snyman said she received advice she could extend the trial period and that she was acting in good faith.
Finnegan had performance issues at work and the trial was to give the young employee an opportunity to prove she was capable of doing the job, according to Snyman.
It was said Finnigan at times would sit down in the yard while she was supervising despite an “absolute rule” that supervisors should not sit down as dogs can crowd around and there was potential for fights.
Snyman said Finnigan was also on her phone, however, the young employee said she was given permission to take videos and pictures of the dogs for social media.
Snyman alleged Finnigan was spoken to “repeatedly” about her conduct in the yard, and she should have foreseen her job was at risk.
As far as Finnigan was concerned there were no issues with how she was in the yard and said nothing was brought to her attention about low performance.
Finnigan said she attended the Christmas party on December 11, and wasn’t aware her job was at risk, but the next day Snyman emailed her saying her employment would not continue.
According to Snyman, she let Finnigan go because she didn’t show improvement at work and did not follow instructions.
Three days after she was dismissed, Finnigan raised a personal grievance for the “unjustified disadvantage” and “unjustified dismissal” through an advocate.
DogHQ said Finnigan’s trial was suspended because of the lockdown and remained suspended while she wasn’t working.
The ERA found that the trial was not suspended for Finnigan “and the clock on the 90-day period kept ticking throughout that time”.
It was found that issues identified and communicated to Finnigan at work weren’t raised in a formal way, meaning it wasn’t clear the issues were putting her employment in jeopardy.
For her grievances, Finnigan was awarded $18,000 in compensation, as well as $2211 in lost wages.
Although performance issues were raised by DogHQ, the ERA believed they weren’t sufficiently raised by the employer at the time.
The ERA also said if DogHQ had complied with the Employment Relations Act, Finnigan would have been able to seek independent advice on the extension of her trial period.
However, because they failed to do so, Finnigan was disadvantaged in her employment.
DogHQ has been contacted for comment but did not respond to emails and calls at the time of publication.
