Annelisa Lummis was asked by her employer to cover her blue hair. Photo / Supplied
Annelisa Lummis was asked by her employer to cover her blue hair. Photo / Supplied
A student has been awarded almost $10,000 after she was fired from her part-time job at a supermarket for refusing to wear a hat to hide her blue hair.
But the owners of the supermarket said the problem was the worker's failure to meet reasonable requests rather than the colourof her hair.
Annelisa Lummis was working at Stokes Valley New World in Wellington when she coloured her hair blue and was asked by her employers, Dan and Tracy Shaw of Shawz Group 2019 Limited, to cover it while at work.
Annelisa Lummis was asked by her employer to cover her blue hair. Photo / Supplied
But the then 18-year-old knew she was not contractually required to do so and held to her position when the Shaws ordered she wear a hat.
Her protest led to a disciplinary process and she was eventually fired without notice for serious misconduct, that being divisive behaviour and refusing to comply with "house rules".
Lummis then raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal with the Employment Relations Authority [ERA].
Following an investigation earlier this year, the ERA has found in favour of the fine arts student and ordered the Shaws to pay her $9786.
The decision has brought to an end a tough couple of years for the now 20-year-old, who described the disciplinary process and the ERA proceeding as daunting.
Annelisa Lummis was fired from her job at New World Stokes Valley. Photo / Google
"I was super young. I had lots of doubts about it and I had been really terrified to stand up for myself."
But because Lummis often advocated for others to stand up for themselves, she knew she should.
"I knew what they were doing wasn't right."
She never would have dyed her hair blue if her contract did not allow it and her protest had been in response to her employers' "bullying", she said.
The ERA's decision detailed how Lummis's new hair colour spiralled into job loss and a hefty penalty for the Shaws.
As a teen, Lummis began her employment at the Lower Hutt supermarket in August 2018. It was her first job and she worked part-time hours.
The following year, the then owners sold the business to the Shawz Group of which Dan Shaw, who had previously worked at the supermarket as a manager, is the sole director and Tracy Shaw a shareholder.
As part of the purchase of the business, the Shaws entered into new employment agreements with existing staff.
Lummis signed hers in November 2019 but the existing house rules, which she had agreed to previously with the former owners, were not replaced and continued to apply.
Around November 20, 2020, she dyed her hair partially blue and when she arrived at the supermarket to begin a shift, Dan saw her hair and asked her to put a hat on.
She obliged that day but on her following shift, she did not wear a hat and was phoned by Tracy Shaw, who refused Lummis' request for a support person during the phone call.
"After [the] support person had left, Mrs Shaw then advised Ms Lummis that refusing to wear a hat was serious misconduct and could result in disciplinary action or even dismissal," the decision said.
Lummis asked if she could have the rest of the day off, which was agreed to, and she was later seen sitting on the ground crying while a colleague comforted her.
Following further disagreement on what was required of Lummis, she was suspended on pay, an employment investigation took place and she was eventually dismissed without notice.
The ERA's investigation found there was no requirement for Lummis to wear a hat.
Neither her employment contract nor the house rules she had signed prohibited dyed hair or specifically required the wearing of hats if hair was dyed a certain colour.
The Shaws relied on what they said was "commonly understood" in the store that if an employee dyed their hair an unnatural colour, then they needed to wear a hat.
Such "common knowledge" was not known by Lummis and the ERA ruled that in any event the unrecorded "understanding" did not impact matters.
The Shaws said they were trying to maintain a professional image at the store and considered hair colours that did not fall within the natural colour spectrum to be "controversial".
They held they were entitled to order Lummis to wear a hat and that she was "bound to obey" them. Her response to their order had been divisive and disrespectful, they claimed.
The ERA ruled there were a number of procedural flaws in the dismissal of Lummis and that it was unjustifiable.
She was awarded short pay, holiday pay, lost remuneration, and compensation for hurt and humiliation.
Lummis said the money would go toward her study.
The Shaws referred Open Justice's request for comment to Foodstuffs, which operates the New World brand.
Emma Wooster, of Foodstuffs NZ, said the Shaws were now taking time to consider their next steps in the matter.
"In this case, the key issue from the store's perspective was not the issue of hair colour, but failing to consistently meet lawful and reasonable requests of the store management team."
Wooster said each New World store was individually owned and operated and each business owner was responsible for some of their own policies.
