DUN TRAN v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 73

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 then emailed a termination letter at 10.00 pm on 26 December 2023. After that, Although Ms Huynh has raised allegations of poor performance by Ms Dung Tran, and said generally that she (quoted wording omitted), neither of these issues were raised with Ms Dung Tran at the time either, and so cannot be relied on to justify her dismissal. Later, Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Dung Tran's attitude and alleged poor performance albeit inconsistently as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her summary dismissal. The determination records that I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Dung Tran claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $45,000. The Authority notes that Allegations of poor performance were only raised after Ms Dung Tran was dismissed rather than during her employment, and were not on all fours with Ms Huyhn's evidence at the investigation meeting.

Key case markers

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

Key events described

• She was then emailed a termination letter at 10.00 pm on 26 December 2023.
• Although Ms Huynh has raised allegations of poor performance by Ms Dung Tran, and said generally that she (quoted wording omitted), neither of these issues were raised with Ms Dung Tran at the time either, and so cannot be relied on to justify her dismissal.
• Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Dung Tran's attitude and alleged poor performance albeit inconsistently 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 Dung Tran claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $45,000.
• Allegations of poor performance were only raised after Ms Dung Tran was dismissed rather than during her employment, and were not on all fours with Ms Huyhn's evidence at the investigation meeting.

Decision markers

• The Authority found that the failure to pay wages in full and when due was unjustified and disadvantaged Ms Dung Tran in the terms and conditions of her employment.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost remuneration (reimbursement of wages): $13,050.40
• 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.