ClickCease

Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52 - Unjustified dismissal, probation clause misused

In Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52, the ERA found an unjustified dismissal after the employer wrongly relied on a probation / "90 day" misunderstanding after the probation period had already expired, and failed to pay notice and holiday pay. Remedies included $20,000 compensation and reimbursement of lost wages.


This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52. The determination is a useful reminder that probation clauses and 90 day trial periods are different legal tools, and employers cannot "backdate" a probation decision after the period has already ended.

Quick facts

  • Citation: Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52
  • ERA registry: Auckland
  • Member: Alastair Dumbleton
  • Investigation meeting: 19 January 2023
  • Determination date: 2 February 2023
  • Applicant representative: Lawrence Anderson (advocate)
  • Respondent counsel: William Tumai
Direct link to the full ERA determination (PDF): https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2023/2023-NZERA-52.pdf

What happened (overview)

Ms Broughton began working for the respondent in March 2022. She initially performed vaccinations assistant work and was paid as if she was an independent contractor. On 15 March 2022 she signed an individual employment agreement for an Administrator role which included a probation clause.

A short meeting was called on 30 June 2022 with only same-day notice. At the end of the meeting Ms Broughton was unexpectedly dismissed. She was told she had been underperforming and (incorrectly) that no notice was required because she had been employed for less than 90 days.

The probation and "90 day" issue

The employment agreement contained a probation provision (per Employment Relations Act 2000, section 67), but it did not contain a compliant statutory trial period clause (section 67A). The Authority found the probation period was not extended and expired on 14 June 2022.

Dismissing on 30 June 2022 by treating the probation arrangements as if they were still "live" was held to be unfair, unreasonable, and unlawful. The Authority also noted that even during a probation period an employer must still act fairly and give feedback and warning (see Nelson Air Ltd v NZ Airline Pilots Association).

Practical takeaways

  • Probation is not a free pass: you still need fair process, feedback, and warning.
  • Trial period clauses must comply with section 67A: they must be in writing and must state the employee cannot bring a personal grievance for dismissal.
  • Check dates: do not assume an employee is within "90 days" or within probation. Your payroll records usually prove it either way.
  • Give notice if required: if you dismiss after probation ends, your contractual notice terms normally apply (unless serious misconduct is proven).

Key findings

  • Unjustified dismissal: the employer offered no justification and wrongly attempted to invoke probation after it had expired. The dismissal was held to be unjustified under the section 103A test of justification.
  • No notice paid: Ms Broughton was dismissed without notice or payment in lieu of notice.
  • Holiday pay unpaid: annual holiday pay due on termination was not paid.
  • Procedural issues: the respondent's response to the ERA process was significantly late, and key witnesses were not called to provide evidence.

Orders and remedies

The employer was ordered to pay (within 28 days)

  • $20,000.00 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings
  • $12,725.86 reimbursement of lost wages
  • $3,907.20 wages in lieu of notice (including applicable entitlements as calculated in the determination)
  • $1,007.92 annual holiday pay on termination (including applicable entitlements as calculated in the determination)
  • Interest: interest was ordered on the lost wages, the wages in lieu of notice, and the annual holiday pay.
  • Costs: costs were reserved.
Employer note: If performance concerns are real, they still need to be raised, documented, and fairly tested with the employee before dismissal. The ERA will generally expect evidence of feedback, an opportunity to improve, and a fair decision-making process.

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.

Open [2023] NZERA 52 (PDF)

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.
Need help with an ERA matter? If you are dealing with probation or trial period issues, dismissal risk, or an ERA claim, we can assist with strategy, settlement, and representation.

Contact Employee Case Form

Read more
Employment Relations Authority (ERA) Unfair dismissal Employment law advice for employers
0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Philip Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 481 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

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 v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 480 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

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 v TBS Trading Limited and Helen Han [2026] NZERA 478 - no employment agreement, late wages and radio-silent dismissal

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 v JIK Limited [2026] NZERA 474 - employee dismissed after seeking family violence leave

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...

Duane April v Coatrite Fire Limited [2026] NZERA 466 - visa worker underpaid, racialised comments, unlawful deductions and unjustified dismissal

Duane April came to New Zealand on an accredited employer work visa to work for Coatrite Fire Limited as an industrial/intumescent spray painter. The ERA found he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by underpayment at $35 rather than the agreed $38 per hour, unauthorised wage deductions, racialised comments, and an unjustified verbal warning. His later dismissal was also unjustified. The employer failed to provide sufficient information about the allegations, unfairly denied remote support from Mr April's father, relied on matters not properly investigated, and dismissed him after a meeting that had ended with an apparent understanding the employment relationship would continue. Coatrite was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, arrears, interest and a $4,000 penalty, while most of its claimed set-off against Mr April was rejected...

Qi Sun v Keene Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 465 - builder dismissed by text after querying apprenticeship costs

Qi Sun was employed by Keene Construction Limited as an apprentice builder. After he queried an unpaid $300 apprenticeship-cost payment, the company director texted that there was not going to be a company anymore and told him not to bother coming into work. The ERA found it was reasonable for Mr Sun to understand that he had been dismissed. Keene Construction provided no evidence, filed no reply, did not attend the investigation meeting, and did not justify the dismissal. The Authority awarded lost wages, compensation, wage and holiday pay arrears, and costs...

Browse topics