Photo: Unsplash
The owner of a nail salon in central Wellington has been ordered to pay seven migrant workers more than $230,000 in compensation for lost wages and humiliation.
The women were brought over from Vietnam at different times in 2023 by Amy's Hair and Beauty owner Ngoc Tuyet Uyen Huynh to work as nail technicians.
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ordered Huynh to pay the women between $27,000 and $37,000 each for unjustified disadvantage, unjustified dismissal and breaches of good faith regarding their treatment by Huynh.
Upon arrival, the nail technicians were required to perform tasks that were not in their employment agreement such as massages, waxing and hair washing, the ERA found.
Huynh claimed she provided an updated agreement to the workers that covered these new duties, but the women claimed they never saw this second agreement.
Many of the women were initially paid $200 per week and later up to $400 per week despite their contracts stating they would work 40 hours per week at $29.66 per hour, according to the ERA determination files.
Some women claimed they often worked every day with only occasional days off and would receive no proper breaks during their shifts.
They were dismissed by Huynh in late December after they visited a Vietnamese person active on Facebook to discuss their work rights earlier that year, the ERA findings said.
"I am told, [they were] asking for various things including having their wages paid into a bank account with tax accounted for, the provision of rosters for certainty of work hours, and the ability to refuse clients who made inappropriate requests," ERA member Claire English said.
Huynh called a staff meeting on 17 December, 2023, claiming the women were "against her" and had "reported her" for going to an advocate and told them to go home and wait for an email, the findings said.
Some of the women got an email to terminate their employment that day. Others received their termination notice sometime later.
Huynh said the women were dismissed because there were problems with their work, and they could not bring claims because they were subject to a 90-day trial period.
One of the women, Thi Kim Chung Nguyen, was dismissed in late December after the 90-day trial period had expired. She had been working there for 100 days, the ERA found.
Regardless, the ERA ruled that the 90-day trial period did not apply to any of the women because they weren't paid the required one-week notice.
Plus, the business employed more than 19 employees at the time and the policy did not apply to an employer of that size.
The clause was also unenforceable because the women did not sign the agreement themselves, as in some cases their agent organised a signature for them.
An eighth application to the ERA was dismissed as the applicant, who returned to Vietnam, failed to file a witness statement or appear at the hearing.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
