JURY v BUCI LIMITED [2025] NZERA 7

Paige Jury was a school student working as a kitchenhand. The ERA found she was a permanent part-time employee, was unjustifiably disadvantaged when her minimum work was reduced without agreement or consultation, and was constructively and unjustifiably dismissed after Buci insisted she sign a casual agreement or not work.

Story in plain English

Ms Jury regularly worked at least four shifts a week for much of her employment. The ERA concluded she was a permanent part-time employee rather than a casual employee. When the restaurant reduced her work below the minimum two days without agreement or consultation, the Authority found an unjustified disadvantage.

When Buci later insisted Ms Jury sign a casual agreement before she could keep working, and issued a final warning when she refused, the Authority found the conduct repudiatory. Her departure was a constructive dismissal and the dismissal was unjustified.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are JURY (employee) and BUCI LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 7 and 8 August 2024 (2 days).
• Authority member: Nicola Craig.

Key events

• Ms Jury began work as a kitchenhand in late November 2022 and, in practice, worked regular shifts.
• During a period when the restaurant owners were away, her work was reduced below the minimum two days she was entitled to as a permanent part-time employee.
• When the absence of a signed agreement became an issue, Buci first offered a permanent part-time agreement and then insisted Ms Jury sign a casual agreement before continuing to work.
• Ms Jury refused to accept the casual status change. Buci told her she could not work unless she signed and issued a final warning.
• The Authority held that Buci's conduct was repudiatory and that Ms Jury's departure amounted to constructive dismissal.

Decision markers

• Ms Jury was a permanent part-time employee entitled to at least two days' work a week.
• Reducing that minimum work without agreement or consultation established an unjustified disadvantage grievance.
• Requiring Ms Jury to sign a casual agreement or stop working was repudiatory conduct and led to a constructive dismissal.
• The dismissal was unjustified because Buci did not act as a fair and reasonable employer could have done.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost wages: $964.75 gross
• Compensation: $17,000
• Holiday pay: $363.20 gross
• Costs: Reserved

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Status follows the real working arrangement: regularly rostered work can be inconsistent with genuine casual employment.
• Guaranteed work cannot simply be removed: reducing agreed minimum work without agreement or consultation can create an unjustified disadvantage.
• Do not force a status change by ultimatum: requiring an employee to sign a materially different casual agreement or stop working can amount to repudiatory conduct and constructive dismissal.
• Remedies can cover several breaches: the Authority ordered lost wages, $17,000 compensation and $363.20 holiday pay.

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.