Original in-game verdict

1. Background 1. These proceedings concern a workplace dispute between Erin Wallace and Harbour Lane Café Pty Ltd. Erin said the café failed to give proper notice about roster changes, that a Saturday shift was removed after she raised a wage concern, and that she should receive economic loss and other relief. The café denied retaliation and said the roster changes were ordinary casual scheduling. 2. The hearing record consists mainly of the parties’ written submissions and a roster screenshot. The plaintiff’s submissions became more specific over time, including a claimed loss of $125.70 for three hours at $41.90 per hour. The defendant consistently maintained that Erin was a casual worker and that the shifts were changed for staffing reasons. 2. Issues for determination 3. The material issues are: first, whether the plaintiff proved a specific unpaid or changed wage loss; second, whether the plaintiff proved a causal link between the wage complaint and the roster change; and third, whether the remedy sought is supported by the record. 3. Submissions of the parties 4. Erin’s case was that she had been rostered regularly, that the café changed her shifts after she raised a wage issue, and that the café should be required to fix the wage and compensate her for loss. In later submissions, she identified a specific amount said to be unpaid and argued that the café should have given notice of roster changes. 5. The café’s case was that Erin was a casual worker, that shifts could change with staffing needs, and that the published roster showed only a normal adjustment marked “cover arranged.” The café denied that the change was punishment or retaliation and said the record did not prove any guaranteed shift or compensable loss beyond the disputed roster entry. 4. Evidence and findings 6. The most important exhibit is the published roster for the following fortnight. It shows Erin listed for the next Saturday and Sunday, and then those shifts crossed out with the note “cover arranged.” That evidence is real and relevant. It proves that Erin had been shown upcoming shifts and that the roster later changed. It does not, by itself, prove why the change happened. 7. The plaintiff’s later submissions made the wage claim more concrete by identifying $125.70 as the amount said to be unpaid. That is enough to make the wage issue specific rather than vague. However, the record still does not prove that the Saturday shift was guaranteed, or that the café was contractually or otherwise bound to keep it in place. 8. On the retaliation issue, timing alone is not enough. The roster change came after the wage message, which creates suspicion, but the café gave a consistent explanation that the change was ordinary casual scheduling and coverage management. No separate decision record, policy document, or witness account was produced to show that the change was made because Erin raised wages. 9. I therefore find that the plaintiff proved a specific claimed amount, but did not prove the key causal link needed for retaliation or improper removal from work. The defendant’s explanation is not independently proved in a perfect way, but it is enough to leave the plaintiff’s allegation unproven on the available record. 5. Reasons 10. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the facts that justify relief. Under the supplied rules, a claim needs specific proof, and reliable records carry more weight than broad assertions. Erin’s submissions became more detailed, but the record still stops short of showing that the Saturday shift was promised in a way that made its removal unlawful. 11. The roster screenshot helps Erin in one respect: it shows she was expected to work and that the roster changed after her wage complaint. But suspicion is not proof. The café’s explanation that casual shifts can change with staffing needs is consistent with the document itself, which uses the phrase “cover arranged.” That wording supports a normal scheduling explanation at least as much as it supports retaliation. 12. The remedy request also goes too far for the proof available. Erin asked for notice of roster changes and economic loss, but the record does not establish a broader entitlement to compensation, an injunction, or future loss. The only amount clearly identified is the disputed shift amount, and even that amount is not shown to be owed on the present evidence. 13. I have considered the parties’ final submissions as a whole. The plaintiff’s strongest point is that the roster changed after the wage complaint. The defendant’s strongest point is that the record shows a casual roster adjustment, not a proven retaliatory act. On balance, the plaintiff has not carried the burden on the decisive issue of causation. 6. Final order 14. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. 15. No compensation or injunction is ordered. 16. The defendant is the prevailing side.