The applicant sought unpaid salary, a profit share arrangement, and accrued annual leave from the respondent, her employer. Despite notifications and opportunities for the respondent to respond, the employer did not participate in the proceedings. Commissioner Walkington, satisfied with a reasonable opportunity had been given, proceeded in the absence of Wild Squeeze.

The applicant, initially a barista, was promoted to Café Manager with an agreed-upon increase in pay. Disputes arose over unpaid wages, accrued leave, and expenses. The evidence, including email exchanges, supported the applicant’s claim for unpaid wages, with Commissioner Walkington finding her to be a full-time employee. Although a payment was made by the employer, a balance for unpaid wages remained, and Commissioner Walkington ordered the outstanding amount.

Regarding the profit share claim, Commissioner Walkington determined that the Christmas card from the respondent to the applicant, in which the respondent referred to a 10% profit share, did not meet the criteria for a binding contract variation. The terms of the profit share arrangement were deemed uncertain, and the lack of evidence on the Café's profit further hindered finding for the applicant. Consequently, Commissioner Walkington did not find a contractual benefit or entitlement denied in the profit share claim.

In conclusion, Commissioner Walkington ordered the respondent to pay the balance of unpaid wages to the applicant but dismissed the profit share claim due to insufficient evidence of a binding contract variation.

The decision can be read here.