Ms Artus claimed she needed to cut Ms Abrao's hours as the cafe was not doing well and she needed to restructure. Her hours had already been reduced as Ms Artus had hired someone else to do the heavy lifting part of her job.
Ms Artus gave the ERA an interview sheet signed by both parties which outlined Ms Abrao's hours of work, wages and a job description which noted "must be fit to carry furniture".
It also noted the job was casual/temporary and "filling in for staff who is on holiday".
Ms Abrao, for whom English is a second language, "hotly contested" she had signed the document "despite the authority's view that it appeared to be the same signature as the one appended to the statement of problem".
"Ms Abrao vociferously maintained that the signature was a forgery and that she had never seen the document that she allegedly signed," Mr Crichton said.
"The authority did not find Ms Abrao a convincing or helpful witness in this respect or, indeed, in any other respect of her evidence. The authority is not persuaded by Ms Abrao's protestations in relation to the document in question."
The interview sheet was important because while it did not represent an employment agreement, it "does deal appropriately with some of the questions around the nature of the offer made by Ms Artus to Ms Abrao in terms of the employment".
"In particular, it is apparent that the hours to be worked are described as 'flexible' and 'as required' and the nature of the employment is categorised as 'casual/temporary'."
"Further, the reason for the employment being offered at all is that, as described in the record of the interview, Ms Abrao is replacing on a short-term basis a staff member who is on holiday."
Ms Artus told the authority that she met Ms Abrao on December 18, 2010, and indicated it was unlikely her job would continue as the business was struggling and costs needed to be cut.
"Ms Artus says that until that conversation, she had never had a cross word with Ms Abrao but that from the moment that she had indicated that she was unlikely to be able to continue to offer Ms Abrao hours, the latter became aggressive and unpleasant," Mr Crichton said.
Ms Abrao also then raised other issues, including a claim for parental leave.
The authority rejected Ms Abrao's contention she was treated unfairly and unjustly in relation to her application for parental leave, and also found she had no grounds for any other complaint.
"The authority is satisfied that Ms Artus' view about the reason for the employment coming to an end is to be preferred over Ms Abrao's contentions," he said.
"This was a part-time, casual employment with no fixed hours. Ms Abrao was called to work as and when required."
However, it fined Ms Artus $500 as she had not given Ms Abrao an employment agreement as required under employment law.
Ms Artus said she believed she had done everything right, while Ms Abrao could not be contacted for comment.
