TRANG BUI v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 72

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, Ms Huynh does not deny the comments attributed to her by Ms Trang Bui and others at the staff meeting on 17 December 2023, that staff were (quoted wording omitted), had (quoted wording omitted) and had gone to meet with an employment advocate about their employment rights. After that, In this case, Ms Trang Bui's employment was terminated because she told her employer when asked that she had attended a public meeting to seek advice about her employment rights under the law and was part of a group message chat discussing this. Later, In her written submissions following the investigation meeting, Ms Huynh states that Ms Trang Bui was only rostered to work the minimum hours in her employment contract and had poor skills. The determination records that Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Trang Bui's attitude and alleged poor performance5 as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her summary dismissal. The Authority notes that This is exacerbated by the fact that Ms Huynh knew her own business needs, and could have been upfront with Ms Trang Bui about what duties she needed done. 5 As per written submissions dated 6 November 2024, which was contrary to the description of Ms Trang Bui's work as "good" during the investigation meeting. Ultimately, I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Trang Bui claimed a compensatory sum of $20,000, but in submissions filed after the investigation meeting, she increased this to $45,000. In the end, 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 Trang Bui.

Key case markers

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

Key events described

• Ms Huynh does not deny the comments attributed to her by Ms Trang Bui and others at the staff meeting on 17 December 2023, that staff were (quoted wording omitted), had (quoted wording omitted) and had gone to meet with an employment advocate about their employment rights.
• In this case, Ms Trang Bui's employment was terminated because she told her employer when asked that she had attended a public meeting to seek advice about her employment rights under the law and was part of a group message chat discussing this.
• In her written submissions following the investigation meeting, Ms Huynh states that Ms Trang Bui was only rostered to work the minimum hours in her employment contract and had poor skills.
• Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Trang Bui's attitude and alleged poor performance5 as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her summary dismissal.
• This is exacerbated by the fact that Ms Huynh knew her own business needs, and could have been upfront with Ms Trang Bui about what duties she needed done. 5 As per written submissions dated 6 November 2024, which was contrary to the description of Ms Trang Bui's work as "good" during the investigation meeting.
• I note that in her statement of problem, Ms Trang Bui 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 Trang Bui.
• Allegations of poor performance were only raised after Ms Trang Bui was dismissed rather than during her employment, and were contradicted by Ms Huynh's evidence at the investigation meeting.
• Orders [79] Ms Thi Quynh Trang Bui has a personal grievance in that she was unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged in her employment. 13 Paragraph 26 of the employer's submissions dated 6 November 2024. 14 Ibid, paragraphs 32 to 43 generally.

Decision markers

• The Authority found that the failure to pay wages in full and when due was unjustified and disadvantaged Ms Trang Bui 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 Trang Bui.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost remuneration (reimbursement of wages): $15,423.20
• 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.