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
LJB v EBD [2026] NZERA 78 - resigned employee sent home mid-notice with no process; dismissal unjustified; $16,500 compensation plus $9,000 penalties for withheld wages and missing time records

A marketing and events assistant resigned with one month's notice, but was called into a surprise meeting and told to clear her desk and leave immediately. The ERA held this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative (a 'sending away'), not an agreed early finish, and the employer could not...

Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

A part-time pool receptionist/manager at a Hastings health and wellness centre was never given a written employment agreement and was never paid for 32 hours worked. After he asked for clarity about his pay and roster, the employer stopped responding, removed his staff access, and asked for his...

Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

Husband-and-wife chefs were dismissed from an Auckland waterfront cafe after an escalating conflict with new management. The ERA found the employer did not investigate properly or give either employee a real opportunity to respond. Both personal grievances were upheld and $95,448 was ordered (lost wages and compensation), payable within 28 days. Costs were reserved.

Kyle Spencer v Modern Transport Engineers Limited [2026] NZERA 60 - dismissal unjustified due to non-minor process defects; $12,000 compensation and employer damages offset

The ERA held the employee's dismissal was unjustified because the disciplinary process had significant defects, including an early stand-down before his views were sought, undisclosed staff discussions, and concern about pre-determination. Even though serious misconduct findings were substantively open on the evidence, the employee was awarded $12,000 compensation after a 20% contribution reduction. The employee was also ordered to repay the employer proven costs for unauthorised private work and purchases, with labour to be recalculated under Appendix A and final pay to be offset.

Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).

Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.

Browse topics