THUY v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 74

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

This decision deals with a dismissal during what the employer said was a 90-day trial period, and the remedies ordered after the Authority found the dismissal unjustified.

In summary, She was then terminated by way of an emailed letter later that day and did not understand what she had done wrong or what Ms Huynh meant as she had been at work. After that, Ms Huynh does not deny the comments attributed to her by Ms Thuy and others at the staff meeting on 17 December 2023, that she was going to fire or dismiss Ms Thuy and others for (quoted wording omitted) by speaking to an employment advocate about their employment rights. Later, Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Thuy's work performance as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her summary dismissal. The determination records that I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Thuy claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $45,000. The Authority notes that Having weighed these factors The Authority concluded the employer should be required to pay a penalty of $2,500, which is half of that requested by Ms Thuy. Ultimately, I also consider that there is no evidence of poor performance which might have resulted in her eventual dismissal. In the end, Allegations of poor performance were only raised after Ms Thuy was dismissed rather than during her employment, and Ms Thuy's evidence was that Ms Huynh and Ms Huynh 's niece had the chance to assess her work in person before she came to New Zealand and found it acceptable.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are THUY (employee) and HUYNH (employer).
• Hearing date noted: .
• Authority member: .

Key events described

• She was then terminated by way of an emailed letter later that day and did not understand what she had done wrong or what Ms Huynh meant as she had been at work.
• Ms Huynh does not deny the comments attributed to her by Ms Thuy and others at the staff meeting on 17 December 2023, that she was going to fire or dismiss Ms Thuy and others for (quoted wording omitted) by speaking to an employment advocate about their employment rights.
• Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Thuy's work performance as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her summary dismissal.
• I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Thuy claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $45,000.
• Having weighed these factors The Authority concluded the employer should be required to pay a penalty of $2,500, which is half of that requested by Ms Thuy.
• I also consider that there is no evidence of poor performance which might have resulted in her eventual dismissal.
• Allegations of poor performance were only raised after Ms Thuy was dismissed rather than during her employment, and Ms Thuy's evidence was that Ms Huynh and Ms Huynh 's niece had the chance to assess her work in person before she came to New Zealand and found it acceptable.

Decision markers

• The Authority found that the failure to pay wages in full and when due was unjustified and disadvantaged Ms Thuy in the terms and conditions of her employment.
• Having weighed these factors The Authority concluded the employer should be required to pay a penalty of $2,500, which is half of that requested by Ms Thuy.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost remuneration (reimbursement of wages): $4,745.60
• Compensation: $20,000.00 (hurt and humiliation)
• Penalty: $2,500.00 (breach of employment agreement / good faith)
• Costs: Reserved

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Trial-period disputes often come down to strict compliance with s 67B and the written agreement.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF 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.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.