Emma Baldwin v RJ Hospitality Solutions Limited [2026] NZERA 413

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns a prep chef who returned from parental leave to find that the hospitality business had changed the days and hours she had consistently worked for more than two years. RJ Hospitality Solutions Limited (RJH) had expanded, moved premises and had genuine operational reasons to consider changing staffing arrangements. However, it did not first put a workplace-change proposal to Emma Baldwin, provide information, consult with her or obtain her agreement. Instead, her Monday work was removed, her weekly hours fell below the 20-hour contractual minimum, and a substantive discussion did not occur until her seventh week back at work and only because she raised the issue. The Authority rejected a claim that Ms Baldwin had been dismissed, constructively or otherwise, and did not find bullying or a penalty-level breach of good faith. It nevertheless found that RJH had unjustifiably disadvantaged her by unilaterally changing her established days and hours of work and providing less than the contracted minimum. RJH was ordered to pay $15,000 compensation, 15.5 hours of wage arrears, and any outstanding annual-leave arrears calculated under the Holidays Act 2003. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background: a predictable part-time pattern before parental leave

Ms Baldwin began working for RJH as a part-time prep chef in July 2022. Her written agreement referred to rostered hours, but the practical reality became stable and regular. She consistently worked Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from about 9 am to 4 pm, and from December 2022 also worked Saturdays from about 7 am to 2 pm. By the time she started parental leave in September 2024, her working days and hours were ordinary and predictable. She had organised her life, including childcare, around them.

RJH was not static while Ms Baldwin was on leave. The business expanded its customer base, moved to a new warehouse and prep-kitchen site, and had to reconsider its operational arrangements. The Authority accepted that there were genuine business needs which could justify a proposal to alter Ms Baldwin's work pattern. The issue was not whether RJH could ever seek a change. It was how it went about doing so.

The return to work: fewer hours and no meaningful prior consultation

Before Ms Baldwin returned, she and RJH had discussed her return date and she had been shown the new premises while they were still largely an empty shell. But she was not told that her days or hours of work would change. The first roster issued for her return omitted her usual Monday shift. She attended after dropping off her children only to be told she was not required that day.

Her hours then fell below the 20-hour contractual minimum across several weeks. She worked 18.5 hours in her first week back, 12 hours in each of the following two weeks, and later experienced other weeks where she was not rostered for work on a Monday or Saturday. At one point, she was also denied sick leave for a day on the basis that she had not been rostered, notwithstanding that the day had become an ordinary day of work in the established pattern.

The core dispute about her days and hours was not substantively discussed until 21 May 2025, her seventh week back at work. That meeting occurred only because Ms Baldwin initiated it. RJH ultimately proposed that she start at 7.30 am. The Authority recorded that RJH knew that this created a childcare difficulty for her, because she had historically started at about 9 am.

No dismissal: final-pay error and withdrawal of labour

Ms Baldwin also claimed that she may have been dismissed before starting parental leave because her September 2024 payslip referred to a final pay and paid out leave-related entitlements. The Authority accepted RJH's explanation that this was an administrative payroll mistake. Both parties expected her to return and she did return. The erroneous payslip did not establish a dismissal.

After the return-to-work dispute, Ms Baldwin supplied medical certificates for a period and then stopped attending work after her paid sick leave was exhausted. She did not provide RJH with a clear notice that she regarded the employment agreement as cancelled or that she had resigned. On the Authority's objective assessment, her conduct was nevertheless akin to a resignation: she effectively withdrew her labour and did not return.

The Authority rejected the constructive-dismissal case. It did not find that RJH had followed a deliberate and dominant course of conduct designed to force Ms Baldwin to leave employment. That meant there was no dismissal, direct or constructive, and no dismissal remedy was available.

The established work pattern could not be changed unilaterally

The successful claim was for unjustified disadvantage. The Authority held that, by the time she took parental leave, Ms Baldwin had a reasonable expectation of consistent days and hours despite the agreement's reference to a roster. That expectation arose from the regular, practical pattern of her work and her reliance on it.

The Authority found that RJH had genuine business needs to alter the days and hours. But a fair and reasonable employer should have put the proposal to Ms Baldwin, provided supporting information, allowed her to comment, and genuinely considered her feedback before making a final decision. RJH did not do that. The change was, in substance, imposed unilaterally.

The determination relied on Commissioner of Police v Coffey for the proposition that good faith applies to an employer seeking to vary an individual employment agreement. An employee cannot genuinely agree to a variation without knowing what is proposed and having a proper opportunity to obtain advice. The Authority found that those requirements were not met here.

The Authority therefore held that RJH unjustifiably disadvantaged Ms Baldwin by changing her days and hours of work and providing less than the 20-hour contractual minimum before properly proposing any contractual change. The failure to provide Monday work was part of that established disadvantage. It was not, however, treated as separate disparate or discriminatory treatment because the evidence did not establish that a casual employee had been favoured over Ms Baldwin in a legally material way.

New premises and alleged bullying

Ms Baldwin also said that she was not properly inducted after the move to the new warehouse and that she was ignored, isolated and treated in a way that amounted to bullying by the facility manager. She described feeling unsupported, set up to fail and made to feel like an inconvenience.

The Authority accepted that the relationship had become strained and that the move made work more difficult. But it did not find a separate induction or training disadvantage. The induction had been imperfect and iterative, but was considered appropriate in the circumstances.

Nor did the Authority find repeated and unreasonable conduct meeting the WorkSafe concept of workplace bullying. It held that the evidence was better explained by a fractured employment relationship and a poorly managed workplace change, rather than intentional targeting or bullying. Because bullying was not established, RJH's response to the allegation did not create a further unjustified disadvantage.

No penalty-level breach of good faith

The Authority also declined to impose a good-faith penalty. RJH's conduct was unjustified, but the threshold for a penalty is higher: deliberate, serious and sustained conduct intended to undermine the employment agreement or employment relationship. The evidence did not meet that test. The facility manager was acting on instructions without access to critical employment documents, rather than deliberately pursuing a course intended to undermine Ms Baldwin's employment.

Remedies: $15,000 compensation, 15.5 hours' wages and leave arrears

Ms Baldwin was affected by the way her return from parental leave was handled. The Authority found that the experience remained raw and unresolved at the investigation meeting, that her income was affected, and that the changes departed from established employment terms. It assessed compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings at $15,000.

There was no reduction for contribution. The Authority held that Ms Baldwin had not behaved in a blameworthy way which contributed to the unjustified disadvantage.

On wages, the Authority found that Ms Baldwin was ready, willing and able to work during the seven weeks after she returned, until she became unwell. It awarded the shortfall between her actual hours and her contractual minimum: 15.5 hours' ordinary time. The Authority also directed RJH to calculate her annual-holiday entitlement to the end of employment on 31 May 2025 and pay any outstanding amount under the Holidays Act 2003, with a payslip and calculation explaining the payment.

Why this case matters

Baldwin v RJ Hospitality Solutions Limited illustrates the legal significance of a settled roster pattern. A formal agreement may refer generally to rostered hours, but the practical arrangement can create an established and reasonably relied-on pattern of days and hours. Employers need to recognise that a return from parental leave is not an opportunity to reset that pattern by surprise.

The case does not mean that an employer is prevented from changing operations after an employee's parental leave. RJH had genuine business reasons to reconsider staffing following expansion and a move of premises. The failure was procedural and relational: no proposal was put before Ms Baldwin before the changes were implemented, no supporting information was provided, and meaningful consultation came too late.

It also distinguishes a fair workplace-change problem from a dismissal claim. An employee can succeed in a personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage even where the Authority does not find that the employment ended by dismissal. Equally, an employee who ceases attending work without a clear communication of resignation or cancellation may face difficulty proving a dismissal or constructive dismissal.

Practical takeaways

• Do not treat parental-leave return as a roster reset: raise intended operational changes before the employee returns wherever reasonably possible.
• Look beyond the wording of the roster clause: a longstanding regular pattern may give the employee a legitimate and enforceable expectation of particular days and hours.
• Propose change before implementing it: identify the genuine business reason, explain the proposal, provide relevant information, invite feedback and make a final decision only after considering it.
• Maintain minimum hours: an employer who has guaranteed a weekly minimum must generally provide or pay those hours unless a lawful change is agreed or otherwise justified.
• Consider childcare realities: an earlier start time can have serious practical consequences, particularly where the employer knows the employee's established family arrangements.
• Document return-to-work communications: payroll, rosters, return dates, proposed hours, leave entitlements and workplace changes should be communicated clearly and accurately.
• Do not overstate a bullying claim: strained communications and poor change management may still be unjustified without meeting the legal threshold for repeated and unreasonable bullying conduct.
• Keep communication active: where an employee becomes unwell or stops attending, both parties should clarify whether employment remains on foot rather than allowing the position to drift.
• Provide transparent arrears calculations: where a determination requires wage or leave payments, a payslip and clear calculation should accompany payment.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.