Abhorrent reaction from Rosie Café owners
The union representing hospitality workers has slammed the actions of the café owners who tricked their employee into
talking to a journalist.
Service and Food Workers Union Regional Director of Organising Andrea Rushton said that it appears the owners of Rosie
Café were not acting in good faith when they organised a phone conference with Rachel Glucina. They failed to inform
their staff member Amanda that Glucina was a Herald journalist, and closely connected to the National Party.
“The employers arranged for Amanda to talk to this journalist. Regardless of the employer’s intention, they’ve chosen
one of New Zealand’s most pro-Key journalists to help them, and have misled Amanda in doing so.”
“The employers may have ignorantly assumed that involving Glucina would not result in an article in the Herald. If
Glucina led them to believe this, she should be sacked. But according to Glucina’s account, the employers knew that
Glucina was doing her job as a journalist.”
“If Glucina’s account is correct, the employers are in huge trouble. It would amount to a violation of the employer’s
basic obligations, and Amanda could be eligible for considerable compensation if she were to file a personal grievance.”
“The owners are chummy with Key, their loyal customer. We’ve learnt that they’re also chummy with The Herald’s ethically
questionable gossip columnist. It looks like they may have all conspired to expose and attack the worker, minimise the
severity of Key’s actions, and distract from the fact that Key has behaved extremely inappropriately.”
Ms Rushton added that even before the story broke, the employers had already breached specific harassment provisions
under the Employment Relations Act by failing to provide her with a safe working environment.
“We’ve read that a manager knew how Amanda felt about the harassment, but waited for Key to approach them before
confirming that Amanda felt uncomfortable. Then, as far as we know, they took no further action to address the sleazy
and disgusting behaviour of their customer, or to support Amanda.”
“Amanda’s loyalty to her employer and management and decision not to blame them for the incident is understandable. But
the fact is, they allowed her to be harassed repetitively by a customer while she was at work. It is made worse by the
fact that the customer was a friend, and the prime minister. They employers must accept some responsibility.”
ENDS