This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Kaytlin Pinder v S & O Bayliss Limited [2022] NZERA 646. This is a useful 90 day trial case for employers: if the employee has already accepted the job (even if they have not started work), a later-signed agreement containing a trial period clause will usually be invalid under section 67A.
Quick facts
- Citation: Kaytlin Pinder v S & O Bayliss Limited [2022] NZERA 646
- Member: Leon Robinson
- Investigation meeting: 7 June 2022 (Tokoroa)
- Determination date: 9 December 2022
- Representatives: Lawrence Anderson for the applicant; Tom Jarman for the respondent
What happened
Ms Pinder applied for a dairy farm role in Tokoroa. The key timeline point is the text message job offer and acceptance. The Authority found she accepted the offer on 4 June 2021, which meant she became an "employee" (as a person intending to work) at that time. The written employment agreement (a Federated Farmers template) was not presented and signed until 11 June 2021.
Why the 90 day trial clause failed
Section 67A requires the trial provision to be agreed with an employee who has not previously been employed by the employer. Because the Authority found Ms Pinder was already employed from 4 June 2021 (offer accepted), the later trial clause could not validly apply.
Practical employer takeaway
- If you want a 90 day trial, get the signed agreement completed before the employee accepts the offer and before any work starts.
- Do not rely on template attestations (for example "7 days to take advice") if they are not true.
- Be clear who the employer is (company vs individual) and disclose agency / principal properly.
Dismissal events
Ms Pinder was injured on the job when a cow stood on her wrist on 5 August 2021. She attended A&E and later advised the employer of the diagnosis and treatment. The next morning (6 August 2021) she was told her employment would be ending and she was given a short timeframe to vacate the farm house.
Key findings
- Trial period invalid: the 90 day trial provision could not apply because employment had already been accepted before the agreement was signed.
- Unjustified dismissal: the employer had concerns about suitability but did not raise them, support improvement, or give Ms Pinder a proper opportunity to respond.
- No contributory conduct reduction: the Authority found no blameworthy conduct that required a reduction in remedies.
- Employment records / agreement breach: penalties were imposed for failing to provide the employment agreement and wage and time record on request.
Orders and remedies
Ordered to be paid within 28 days
- $12,692.28 gross reimbursement (12 weeks at $1,057.69 gross per week)
- $15,000.00 compensation for hurt and humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings (s 123(1)(c)(i))
- $1,000.00 penalties (global penalty for breaches of sections 64 and 130)
Read the full determination
This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded document does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.
![Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96 - redundancy unjustified for consultation failures and no redeployment discussion; $24,230 lost wages, $19,000 compensation, $1,500 penalty](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)