Jake Pirret-Buik was unjustifiably dismissed from his pizza delivery job at Domino's in Pakuranga.
A teenager had worked only four shifts as a pizza delivery driver before he was accused of stealing $50 and fired “on the spot”.
Jake Pirret-Buik claimed store manager, Nishi Gupta, told him he no longer worked for Second Slice Limited (SSL), a franchised branch of Domino’s Pizza in Pakūranga, “because of what happened”, and, “you know what you did”.
Pirret-Buik, who was 18 at the time, said he was confused and vehemently denied taking any money.
The after effects of the job loss continued for the now 20-year-old who said he felt “a sudden slump in confidence”, financial pressure, and upset and embarrassment at the suggestion he had been dishonest.
He took SSL to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) where he argued he had been wrongly accused of theft and unjustifiably dismissed.
Pirret-Buik, who had worked at the same store for the previous owners in 2022, won his case and has now been awarded almost $10,000 in lost wages and distress compensation.
While pleased with the result, he told NZME it was not much of a win as the cost of holding his former employer to account was more than what they had been ordered to pay him.
“It was not a pleasant experience going up against them legally,” he said.
“But it is great that they have been held accountable and to have the truth out there so others can be wary.”
The authority’s decision, released this month, showed a huge contrast between Pirret-Buik and SSL’s version of events, and the agreed nature of his employment.
ERA member Robin Arthur, who heard the claim, said in the decision that disputes of fact arising from the evidence needed to be resolved based on the balance of probabilities.
He heard from Pirret-Buik’s brother, a former fellow worker, Gupta, another current employee, and SSL sole director and shareholder Jashan Singh to assist in his investigation.
According to the decision, Pirret-Buik began work for SSL in April last year and was working on April 15 when he delivered pizzas to “intoxicated” people at a Sunnyhills address.
He told the authority they paid by Eftpos but when he returned to the store, Gupta said the payment had not gone through.
Pirret-Buik went back to the address and explained the problem to the customers who then gave him $50 cash as payment. He said he returned the money to the store and gave it to Gupta.
But Gupta did not respond to his written statement to the ERA about the incident and when, at the investigation meeting, Arthur asked her why, she said “because nothing such happened”.
When asked if she thought he stole any money, she said “no”.
This differed from the evidence of a former employee who recalled asking Gupta in late April about the whereabouts of Pirret-Buik.
She told the ERA that Gupta told her “he had been fired cos he had stolen money”.
Gupta reportedly said Pirret-Buik “had taken money to give as change but the customer paid by Eftpos instead and [he] never returned the money to the register”, the woman said in her evidence.
But Gupta denied such a conversation took place.
According to the decision, other issues for determination included the nature of Pirret-Buik’s employment.
SSL rejected the claim he had been hired to work on an ongoing part-time basis, despite his employment agreement stating just that, and argued it was only casual.
Pirret-Buik also claimed Gupta had promised him a minimum of 30 hours of work each week, which she denied.
Arthur found the evidence did not establish that Gupta had agreed to give him 30 hours of work and the contract did not specify the hours.
He said, considering the rosters for shifts worked by other delivery drivers, it was more likely Pirret-Buik would have received around 20.
There was also a dispute over when Pirret-Buik began work for SSL, with the company submitting he only worked two shifts for them, on April 14 and 15 last year.
But he said he had been asked to fill in on April 7 and 8, before he received his employment agreement, and his car’s GPS records showed pizza delivery trips to prove he worked the shifts. SSL rejected this and suggested Pirret-Buik must have followed another delivery driver and stopped near the same addresses.
Arthur found it was more likely than not that Pirret-Buik did work on April 7 and 8, noting another employee recalled seeing him working and the GPS records for his car matched the store’s order records for those days.
“There was no evidence to support the allegation that Mr Pirret-Buik had simply shadowed another delivery driver. It was no more than speculation offered by Mr Singh in his evidence.”
On April 18 last year, the day he was fired, Gupta had texted him to tell him to come into the store. She said she wanted to get his employment agreement signed and returned to her.
But she told the ERA he never turned up.
Pirret-Buik, disputed this, stating he did go and see Gupta and that she had told him Singh did not want him working for the company anymore.
He said Gupta gave him a contract and told him he had to sign and return it if he wanted his final pay.
According to Pirret-Buik, he asked Gupta why and she responded “you know what you did”.
“He said he felt she was ‘firing me on the spot’ for ‘implied false accusations’,” the decision stated.
Arthur said Gupta did not have a satisfactory explanation of why, if Pirret-Buik had not come to the store that evening as she had asked, she made no further attempt to contact him to ask if he still wanted work.
“A reasonable inference may be made that she did not try to contact him because she knew he had been told that evening that his employment with SSL was over.”
After considering the evidence, Arthur found Pirret-Buik had established his claim he had been dismissed and that it was unjustified.
“Whatever concerns SSL may have had were not put squarely to him for response. A conclusion about his employment was made without considering whatever response he may have had, given the chance. He was treated unfairly as a result, losing the prospect of work over the following weeks.”
He said no blameworthy conduct by Pirret-Buik was established as contributing to the situation or the personal grievance.
Arthur ordered that SSL must pay him $8000 as compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to his feelings, and $147.10 for arrears of wages, for April 7 and 8. The company must also pay him $1716.12 in lost wages which covered from April 18 until he left for an extended family holiday on May 11.
Pirret-Buik had also claimed for lost wages after his return to New Zealand in September 2023 but Arthur declined this, ruling that even if his employment had not been terminated in April, there was no requirement or certainty he would have returned to the job after the holiday.
Singh declined to comment on the ERA outcome when contacted by NZME for comment.
Tara Shaskey joined NZME in 2022 as a news director and Open Justice reporter. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff covering crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and Māori issues.
Traffic exiting SH16 via Rosebank and Pātiki road off-ramps is being turned around.