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
Lita Beattie v Matthew Roberts [2026] NZERA 450 - employee status, unpaid wages and constructive dismissal

Lita Beattie worked long hours as head chef for Matthew Roberts at Matt's Kitchen but was paid sporadically, sometimes in cash, and often not at all. Mr Roberts argued the arrangement was a contracting or business-support arrangement, partly connected with an alleged debt. The ERA found Ms Beattie was an employee. The Flexi Wage subsidy discussions, the intended employment agreement, her integration into the business, the absence of invoices, and the fact she worked under Mr Roberts' direction all pointed to employment. The failure to pay wages was a serious breach that foreseeably compelled her resignation, so the resignation was a constructive dismissal. Mr Roberts was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation, $14,040 lost wages, $23,050 gross wage arrears, $1,844 annual holiday arrears, PAYE and KiwiSaver accounting, and interest on wage and holiday arrears...

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were working holiday visa holders engaged by Queenstown Nursery Limited as casual nursery assistants. The employer argued their work was offered only day by day and could simply stop being offered. The ERA disagreed. An email promising Monday to Wednesday work for at least the next three weeks created an assignment extending to 23 April 2025. When QNL ended the work on 15 April, it said the reason was weather, but later acknowledged the applicants had been selected because they were considered less efficient. The Authority found no fair process, no evidence of substantive justification, and a breach of good faith. Each applicant was awarded $848 gross for four lost working days, including Easter Monday as an otherwise working day, and $2,000 compensation...

Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453 - forced leave request, unjustified suspension and dismissal

JIT Limited dismissed Sukhmanpreet Singh after an argument with a director about annual leave. The ERA found the employer had unlawfully pressured him to write an annual-leave request, then suspended him by cancelling shifts without proper process, and later dismissed him without a fair investigation or fair opportunity to answer the full allegations. A pushing allegation was not established. The Authority also found wage and public-holiday arrears, record-keeping failures, and Wages Protection Act breaches. After a 15 percent contribution reduction, JITL was ordered to pay $9,019.44 lost remuneration and $15,300 compensation, plus $5,176.80 arrears and interest, and penalties including $2,500 payable to Mr Singh and $4,500 payable to the Crown...

Steven David Mitchell v Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated [2026] NZERA 435 - CEO returned to payroll on interim reinstatement

Tasman Rugby Union summarily dismissed its CEO, Steven David Mitchell, for alleged serious misconduct. In this interim decision, the ERA did not finally determine the allegations. It found, however, that Mr Mitchell had a strongly arguable unjustified-dismissal case, including an arguable predetermination concern arising from a review process, how that review later fed into the disciplinary process, and Board communications that could indicate adverse and personalised views had formed before the decision. The Authority held that the new 2026 remedies amendments applied, but could not make definitive contribution or serious-misconduct findings at the interim stage. It ordered immediate reinstatement to payroll only, backdated to 21 March 2026, while reserving the substantive merits hearing...

Filisi Beswick v Friendly Loans Limited [2026] NZERA 436 - medical incapacity dismissal without a fair inquiry

Friendly Loans Limited dismissed Filisi Beswick for medical incapacity less than four weeks after she had been admitted to hospital with blurred vision and migraines. On the day of dismissal, she had told the company that her medical position had improved, that she had a negative Covid test, a valid driver licence and an updated medical certificate. She asked for a face-to-face meeting and to discuss work from home. The ERA held the company could not reasonably conclude she was incapable of her ongoing duties, had not sought her input, had not allowed sufficient recovery time, and had not considered alternatives. It also held a $2,439.09 loan deduction from final pay unlawful. The Authority ordered $24,436.09 in total...

Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Thomas Shea was told by phone that there was no more work for him after his trucking and contracting hours fell sharply. STLand Contracting Limited had genuine financial pressure and could have commenced a workplace change process, but it did nothing. The ERA found a clear dismissal without consultation, found that Mr Shea had also been bullied in an unsafe workplace, and ordered $45,600 in notice pay, lost wages, compensation and costs...

Browse topics