CUC v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 68

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, This was confirmed in writing by way of an undated letter, stating that she was being dismissed in accordance with the trial period in her employment agreement, and would receive one week's notice. After that, She gives firm evidence that she was dismissed because she was too outspoken and asked Ms Huynh for her rights and raised complaints about her employment. Later, In her written submissions following the investigation meeting, Ms Huynh states that Ms Cuc's performance at work was poor, and she had not improved after training. The determination records that Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Cuc's work performance as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her summary dismissal. The Authority notes that I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Cuc claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $45,000. Ultimately, 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 the applicant. In the end, I also consider that there is no evidence of poor performance which might have resulted in her eventual dismissal.

Key case markers

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

Key events described

• This was confirmed in writing by way of an undated letter, stating that she was being dismissed in accordance with the trial period in her employment agreement, and would receive one week's notice.
• She gives firm evidence that she was dismissed because she was too outspoken and asked Ms Huynh for her rights and raised complaints about her employment.
• In her written submissions following the investigation meeting, Ms Huynh states that Ms Cuc's performance at work was poor, and she had not improved after training.
• Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Cuc's work 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 Cuc 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 the applicant.
• I also consider that there is no evidence of poor performance which might have resulted in her eventual dismissal.
• Allegations of poor performance were only raised after Ms Cuc was dismissed rather than during her employment, and Ms Cuc's evidence was that Ms Huynh and Ms Huynh's niece had the chance to assess her work in person before she came to New Zealand and found it acceptable.

Decision markers

• 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 the applicant.

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.