The Employment Relations Authority decision, released late last week, grants permanent name suppression to the complainant and interim name suppression to her employer.
The complainant, who was 14 at the time, took the after-school job at what she called her family’s favourite takeaways business, but things changed when the employer started talking to her inappropriately, leading her to call in sick on more than one occasion.
She also argues it affected her performance and attendance at school.
The employer denied the sexual harassment.
ERA member Helen Doyle found that not only was the employee constructively dismissed, but her complaints about her employer sexually harassing her were upheld.
"I am satisfied [the employee] was subjected to behaviour that was unwelcome and offensive to her and it had a detrimental effect on her employment, performance of her role and job satisfaction.
"The authority has found personal grievances of unjustified disadvantage and unjustified constructive dismissal because of sexual harassment established."
The decision said the employee was employed in an after-school role from April 5, 2022 as a takeaway food assistant when she was in year 10 at high school.
"She was 14 years of age and excited to begin work ... It had been her family’s favourite takeaway business."
The employee resigned in October 2022 "due to the sexual harassment she was experiencing".
The authority held an investigation meeting in March this year in Invercargill, and a further one by audio visual link last month.
During the investigation, the employee said things changed a few months into her employment when the employer "started talking to her inappropriately in a sexual manner when they were alone".
"She said that she became anxious and nervous about working with him, particularly when she knew she was going to be working alone with him.
Among the accusations by the employee was that her employer repeatedly spoke to her inappropriately in person including calling her "hot", "beautiful" and "attractive".
He also allegedly invited her to a nightclub and before she could say no, said "oh wait you’re too young aren’t you".
There were also claims that he queried whether she had "sent nudes" before.
A previous employee, aged 16, also alleged she was similarly harassed by the employer, who had allegedly made a comment at work "you look like you would be a dirty little b....".
In response, the employer’s counsel, Belinda Allen, said there had been a level of collusion between the employee and a previous employee "to financially exploit" the employer.
He also claimed his request about sending nudes was misconstrued and was referring to whether someone else had sent nudes.
Ms Allen said there was evidence that the employee had told her parents that she "loved money".
Ms Doyle found it unlikely there would have been collusion given the tone and nature of the text messages between the complainant and the previous employee.
"Neither [the employee] nor [the previous employee] embellished their evidence or ‘put the boot in’.
"The evidence did not support the two had colluded to provide evidence to the authority that was false."
The employee’s counsel Mary-Jane Thomas said her client sought $20,000 in compensation.
Ms Doyle granted this request in full.
"It is appropriate that there be an award of that sum for compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings subject to any findings about contribution," she said.
