ClickCease

Brad Capper v CJS Construction [2023] NZERA 314 - Unjustified dismissal and trial period

The personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld. The employer could not rely on a 90 day trial period because the written agreement was not signed before the employee started work. Compensation was awarded in the sum of $4,000 for hurt and humiliation (after a 50%...


Brad Capper v CJS Construction [2023] NZERA 314

A practical summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) unjustified dismissal decision, with the full PDF embedded below.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2023] NZERA 314
  • Parties: Brad Capper v CJS Construction
  • Registry: AUCKLAND
  • Authority member: Alastair Dumbleton
  • Investigation meeting: 14 March 2023
  • Determination date: 2023-06-16
  • Main outcome: Unjustified dismissal upheld; trial period not available.

What happened

This case involved a short employment relationship. The employee was engaged as a carpenter by a small construction business, and the employment ran for only about one month.

The relationship ended after the employee took time off and communication broke down. The employer attempted to contact the employee but received no reply, and then told him by phone that his employment was terminated.

A key issue was whether the employer could rely on a 90 day trial period. The Authority found the required written trial period agreement was not in force because it was not signed by the employee before he started work.

Because the trial period was not effective, the Authority assessed justification under the standard unjustified dismissal framework. The Authority accepted the employer had concerns about performance and communication, but found the dismissal process itself was not what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in the circumstances.

The Authority also found the employee contributed to the situation by failing to engage with the employer's attempts to contact him. The Authority assessed contribution at 50%, which reduced the level of remedies.

In terms of remedies, Compensation was set at $4,000. Wages in lieu of notice were ordered at $1,520. No lost wages were awarded.

Outcome and remedies

The personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld. The employer could not rely on a 90 day trial period because the written agreement was not signed before the employee started work. Compensation was awarded in the sum of $4,000 for hurt and humiliation (after a 50% contribution reduction). The employer was also ordered to pay $1,520 as wages in lieu of notice. The Authority declined to award lost wages. Costs were left open for application under the Authority's usual timetable.

  • Compensation (hurt and humiliation): $4,000
  • Wages in lieu of notice: $1,520
  • Lost wages: Declined
  • Costs: Any application by either party is to be made within 14 days of the date of this determination, and any reply is to be made within a further 14 days of the application.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.


Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Layth Abu-Laban v Everest Corporation Limited [2026] NZERA 292 - permanent automotive technician dismissed after employer tried to treat employment as an unrenewed one-year contract; unjustified dismissal upheld; employer counterclaim failed

Everest Corporation Limited told an automotive technician his employment was ending because it would not renew what it said was a one-year contract. The ERA found the agreement was permanent, the dismissal process was non-existent, and the employer's later allegations of poor workmanship, customer solicitation, misuse of property and theft were not substantiated...

Kyle Horsefield v Eurocars Limited [2026] NZERA 293 - car salesperson labelled casual was a permanent employee; dismissal by text message unjustified; $12,345 ordered

Eurocars labelled a new car salesperson as casual and then texted him that his casual employment was terminated because he was busy with a lawyer and physio. The ERA found the real relationship was permanent on an as-required basis, the text was a summary dismissal, and the employer had no fair process or substantive justification...

Lyon Kawhaaru v The Deck Tahuna Limited [2026] NZERA 288 - cafe worker told by email he was 'instant dismissed' after customer incident; unjustified dismissal upheld; remedies reduced 25% for contribution

After a customer incident captured on CCTV, the employer emailed that the matter was serious misconduct and 'will result in instant dismissal effective from 4 June'. The ERA held that was an unequivocal sending away: the worker was dismissed without any fair process and did not abandon...

Nicholas Gordon Pilcher v Brandt Tractor Limited [2026] NZERA 273 - dismissal for untested bullying complaints held unjustified; de facto suspension unjustified; $19,360 compensation + 4 months' lost pay

A sales manager was put on 'special leave' while four bullying/harassment complaints were being investigated, but his phone and laptop were taken and he was removed from the workplace without prior consultation. Five days later he was dismissed for serious misconduct without being given the...

Phil Jacklin v Planit Software Testing Limited [2026] NZERA 264 - bonus clause held discretionary; KPI delay breached contract; $10,000 unjustified disadvantage award

A general manager resigned after months of dispute about a short term incentive (STI) clause. He believed he was entitled to 25% of salary, paid quarterly, and that KPIs had to be issued by 1 April. The ERA rejected the constructive dismissal claim because the STI was discretionary and annual,...

Daniel Bly v FutureCo Limited [2026] NZERA 269 - dismissal for Instagram posts and Slack messages held unjustified; $15,000 compensation; 6 months' pay less 50% contribution

A lead developer on a high-pressure KFC app project posted about exhaustion on Instagram and sent blunt messages to a junior developer. FutureCo treated this as serious misconduct and dismissed him. The ERA held the dismissal unjustified, found excessive hours were an unjustified disadvantage,...

Browse topics