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
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.
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.
Contact Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form
Related articles
Browse all articles![Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments](/Images/EmploymentAdvocatesAuckland.jpg)
Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments
A practical summary of Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18. The ERA found constructive dismissal and ordered compensation, lost wages, wage and holiday arrears, and repayment of an unlawful premium payment.
Jagjit Singh v L&B Foods Ltd t/a Kafal Indian Cuisine [2026] NZERA 13 - Unjustified dismissal and wage arrears
Jagjit Singh v L&B Foods Ltd [2026] NZERA 13. The Authority upheld unjustified dismissal, ordered compensation and lost wages (reduced for contributory conduct), and ordered wage and public holiday arrears with interest.
George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14 - 90-day trial invalid, unjustified dismissal
In George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14, the ERA held the 90-day trial was invalid because the employee had already worked (and been paid) before signing. The dismissal was unjustified and the Authority awarded lost wages and compensation.
Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8 - Unjustified dismissal and remedies
Summary of Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8. The ERA found an unjustified dismissal and ordered lost wages ($6,656) and compensation ($15,000).
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 - Unjustified dismissal and temporary non-publication
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 is an unjustified dismissal determination. The ERA ordered $14,040.00 gross lost wages (3 months cap) and $17,500.00 compensation, with costs reserved. The determination includes a temporary non-publication order.
Jingkai Wang v Envoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845 - Not dismissed, but unjustified disadvantage and $1,500 compensation
In Jingkai Wang v E|nvoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845, the ERA found the employee was not dismissed and had resigned. A limited unjustified disadvantage was established due to the employer's failure to respond to concerns raised in the resignation email. The ERA awarded $1,500 compensation (after a 25% reduction for blameworthy conduct). Costs were reserved.