A man who took Restaurant Brands to the Employment Relations Authority after he lost his job while incarcerated has lost his battle for compensation. The man argued that it was up to KFC to find him in the prison system before dismissing him.
KFC Papakura worker Rohit Arora sought compensation and re-employment, saying it was unfair that he only learnt about his dismissal upon his release from prison. Arora was arrested in September 2016 for a matter involving his partner at the time, although the charges were later dismissed. Arora was initially denied bail and instructed his lawyer to contact KFC to let them know he was imprisoned – however, the lawyer was forced to leave a voice message.
After Arora failed to show up for three consecutive shifts the next week, KFC sent a letter to his last known address acknowledging he was imprisoned and requesting a meeting on September 29. Arora’s then-partner emailed back outlining the situation and KFC postponed the meeting to October 14. When Arora failed to attend the meeting, due to still being imprisoned, his employment was terminated.
Upon his release from prison in January 2017, Arora filed a personal grievance with Restaurant Brands. In submitting evidence to the ERA, Restaurant Brands argued that the last day to raise a personal grievance was January 22 – six days before Arora was released.
The ERA found that the initial employment agreement provided for abandonment, and therefore the onus was on Arora to let his employer know of his situation.
