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
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.

ZZP v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZERA 367 - medical incapacity dismissal unjustified because final concerns were not put to the employee

ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.

Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos, a painter's assistant employed by Nresh Group Limited, succeeded in personal grievance claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. The ERA found Nresh created a hostile and insecure work environment, failed to follow a fair dismissal process, and had no substantive justification for dismissal. Nresh was ordered to pay $25,000 compensation, $1,440 gross lost wages, $2,698.15 gross wage arrears, public holiday entitlements for Good Friday and ANZAC Day 2024, interest, and penalties split between Mr Dos Santos and the Crown.

Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354 - unjustified café dismissal by text message

Auto John Huntley-Byrne was dismissed from his café job at Hind Quarters after close-up tasks were left incomplete. The ERA found Dallison 2021 Limited had some basis to be concerned, but it dismissed him by text message without a proper disciplinary meeting, without a real opportunity to respond, and without the procedural protections required by the employment agreement and handbook. Dallison was ordered to pay $7,469.28 gross lost wages and $13,500 compensation after a 10 percent contribution reduction, plus a $500 penalty to the Crown for incomplete wage and time records.

Browse topics