Chicken and waffle shop fires its shareholders for alleged theft

A pair of brothers who each held 20 per cent ownership of a Darwin-based chicken shop were dismissed by their employer, alleging they stole company funds.

Brothers Weihong and Weichen Tao had their feathers ruffled after finding themselves in the peculiar position of being fired from One Waffle + Two Peck Crispy Chicken – a store in which they hold a collective 40 per cent stake. The pair were dismissed after their employer claimed they had committed “serious misconduct”.

The brothers filed an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), claiming that despite their part ownership of the store, they both worked between 30 and 60 hours per week, depending on the business demands of their employer – constituting regular and systematic employment.

The pair claimed that they were only made aware of their dismissal – which occurred on 12 July 2024 – when the store was closed down without notifying either of them. The brothers only became aware of the store closure through a public announcement.

Reopening just seven days later, a group chat was created for staff scheduling, which excluded the brothers. Until they made their application to the FWC and the employer filed its response, the brothers had no idea why they were dismissed – including the “serious misconduct” allegations.

The brothers claimed that the closure was caused by “the employer’s failure to restock inventory, leaving no products available for sale”, despite the pair repeatedly informing their employer about the stock shortages, but they ignored [the brothers] warnings”.

According to the employer, the brothers committed serious misconduct by allegedly closing the business during the busy lunch hour on 11 July 2024, “causing financial losses and operational disruption”.

It’s also alleged that the brothers “stole company funds”, claiming that the point-of-sale (POS) records showed missing cash discrepancies. The employer claimed that they filed a police report in relation to the missing cash – however, the police did not proceed with a formal investigation.

This was contested by the brothers, who submitted that they were never contacted by the police in relation to any such allegation.

The employer also questioned their employment status, labelling them as casual employees and disputing that they were employed on a regular and systematic basis.

“The [brothers] did not work continuously – there were multiple breaks in their employment periods ... The [brothers] often had to request work shifts, demonstrating no automatic or systematic allocation of hours,” the employer said.

The employer submitted that the commission’s resources were wasted on this case as it should have progressed as a commercial dispute arising out of a deteriorated ownership relationship between the employer and the brothers.

In the consideration, the commission somewhat agreed with his notion, stating that the situation “is an unusual case”. Speaking on their employment status, the commission raised: “I don’t understand why shareholders who own 20 per cent of the business each would be employed as casual employees.”

Despite the uniqueness of the situation, the commission’s findings were rather straightforward, concluding that the employer failed to carry out the dismissal with procedural fairness – failing to offer the brothers an opportunity to respond to the allegations of serious misconduct.

On top of that, the commission found that the employer operated in an “inappropriate manner” by failing to ensure that the store had enough food to sell, which ultimately led to the store’s closure.

“I find that the [brothers’] terminations were harsh, unjust and unreasonable,” the commission said.

The brothers both received paid compensation equating to four weeks’ work plus superannuation.