CHUNG v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 69

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

This decision deals with a dismissal during what the employer said was a 90-day trial period, and the remedies ordered after the Authority found the dismissal unjustified.

In summary, She was dismissed on 26 December 2023 under a 90-day trial period after she had been working for 100 days. After that, For reasons unknown to Ms Chung, she was emailed a termination letter at 11.00 pm on 26 December 2023. Later, The Authority found that it is more likely than not that Ms Chung started work on 17 or 18 September 2023. The determination records that Although Ms Huynh has raised general claims that there was poor performance by Ms Chung, these allegations were not raised at the time either, and so cannot be relied on to justify her dismissal. The Authority notes that Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Chung's attitude and alleged poor performance as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her summary dismissal. Ultimately, I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Chung claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $45,000. In the end, Having weighed these factors The Authority concluded the employer should be required to pay a penalty of $2,500, which is half of that requested by Ms Chung.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are CHUNG (employee) and HUYNH (employer).
• Hearing date noted: .
• Authority member: .

Key events described

• She was dismissed on 26 December 2023 under a 90-day trial period after she had been working for 100 days.
• For reasons unknown to Ms Chung, she was emailed a termination letter at 11.00 pm on 26 December 2023.
• The Authority found that it is more likely than not that Ms Chung started work on 17 or 18 September 2023.
• Although Ms Huynh has raised general claims that there was poor performance by Ms Chung, these allegations were not raised at the time either, and so cannot be relied on to justify her dismissal.
• Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Chung's attitude and alleged poor performance as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her summary dismissal.
• I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Chung claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $45,000.
• Having weighed these factors The Authority concluded the employer should be required to pay a penalty of $2,500, which is half of that requested by Ms Chung.
• Allegations of poor performance were only raised after Ms Chung was dismissed rather than during her employment.

Decision markers

• The Authority found that it is more likely than not that Ms Chung started work on 17 or 18 September 2023.
• The Authority found that the failure to pay wages in full and when due was unjustified and disadvantaged Ms Chung in the terms and conditions of her employment.
• Having weighed these factors The Authority concluded the employer should be required to pay a penalty of $2,500, which is half of that requested by Ms Chung.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost remuneration (reimbursement of wages): $9,491.20
• Compensation: $20,000.00 (hurt and humiliation)
• Penalty: $2,500.00 (breach of employment agreement / good faith)
• Costs: Reserved

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Trial-period disputes often come down to strict compliance with s 67B and the written agreement.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.