GILLARD v SOUTHSHORE MARINE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 454

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

Story in plain English

According to the determination, Determination: 28 July 2025 DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY Employment Relationship Problem [1] The Applicant, Mr Gillard claims he was unjustifiably dismissed by his former employer (SSM). After that, However, The Authority found it commenced on 9 October 2023 consistent with the commencement date in the IEA, the date from which there was work being performed to trial. Later, However, with no evidence that SSM followed any fair process of raising performance, conduct or capacity issues with Mr Gillard, SSM has not proved it was justified to dismiss Mr Gillard.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are GILLARD (employee) and SOUTHSHORE MARINE LIMITED (employer).

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• Determination: 28 July 2025 DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY Employment Relationship Problem [1] The Applicant, Mr Gillard claims he was unjustifiably dismissed by his former employer (SSM).
• However, The Authority found it commenced on 9 October 2023 consistent with the commencement date in the IEA, the date from which there was work being performed to trial.
• However, with no evidence that SSM followed any fair process of raising performance, conduct or capacity issues with Mr Gillard, SSM has not proved it was justified to dismiss Mr Gillard.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• Having heard from Mr Gillard The Authority was satisfied he was familiar with what this meant.
• However, The Authority found it commenced on 9 October 2023 consistent with the commencement date in the IEA, the date from which there was work being performed to trial.
• The Authority found it plausible that Mr Gillard was concerned to have a continuity of earning with the additional stress he had relocated to Christchurch for the role where his rent became higher than when living in a smaller town.
• The Authority found that this determination in itself will be a lesson to them when employing staff in the future against a 90-day trial period, and also in relation to the way communication with employees needs to be open and constructive.
• The Authority found nothing to show that SSM has received penalties before.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $12,000.00
• Lost wages / arrears: $13,920.00

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

• 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.