In Kaytlin Pinder v S & O Bayliss Ltd [2022] NZERA 646 the ERA held the 90-day trial clause was invalid because employment had already been accepted before the agreement was signed. The dismissal was unjustified. The Authority awarded $12,692.28 gross lost wages, $15,000 compensation, and $1,000 penalties for record / agreement breaches.
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
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)
Costs: costs were reserved. The determination set a timetable for costs memoranda if the parties could not agree.
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.
Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.
Need help with a 90 day trial, unjustified dismissal, or an ERA claim?
We can assist with strategy, settlement, drafting, and representation at mediation / the ERA.
Advice for New Zealand employers using 90 day trial periods, including clause checks, start date risk, written notice, payment, termination mistakes, and Personal Grievance exposure.
NZ 90-day trial period law explained. If the trial clause or notice is defective, you may still raise a Personal Grievance (PG) for unjustified dismissal. Check common mistakes.
Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.
ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.
Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.
Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.
![Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)