Kaytlin Pinder v S & O Bayliss Ltd [2022] NZERA 646 - 90-day trial invalid before start, unjustified dismissal, penalties

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.

Philip Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a site foreman in a logging operation. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow any real good-faith consultation process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of paying notice wages, failed to provide wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages, penalties, and to allow limited personal recovery against the director if the company could not pay...

Conner Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a forestry worker from November 2022 until his employment ended on redundancy grounds in January 2025. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow a good-faith restructuring process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of notice wages, failed to provide the employment agreement and wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages and penalties...

Jia Jia worked for TBS Trading Limited as a retail sales assistant for about two and a half months. She was not given a written employment agreement, her wages were not always paid on time, and her employment ended after the employer stopped offering her full-time work and then stopped offering her work at all. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage. It ordered two months' lost wages, $12,500 compensation, penalties for failing to provide an employment agreement and late wage payment, costs and the filing fee. Helen Han was not found personally liable for dismissal remedies, but the ERA granted leave for Ms Jia to recover the penalties from Ms Han personally if TBS could not pay them...

OAS was employed as a chef by JIK Limited. After a family violence incident involving his ex-partner, OAS told the employer he needed time away from work to keep his children safe, deal with urgent family matters, meet a victim support adviser and pursue protection-order steps. JIK treated his messages as a resignation or abandonment of employment and left him off the next roster. The ERA held that OAS had not resigned or abandoned his job. He was entitled to family violence leave and JIK's decision not to roster him again was a dismissal. The dismissal was unjustified because JIK failed to engage with the family violence situation and dismissed him for missing work when he was entitled to be away. The Authority awarded compensation and lost wages, reduced by 10 percent for contribution...