Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the core terms of Valerie Leech's job and directed her when to start before giving her a written employment agreement containing a 90-day trial. The Employment Relations Authority found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed. The trial was invalid, the dismissal was unjustified, and EICL was ordered to pay $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

The job was offered before the agreement arrived

Ms Leech interviewed in May 2024 and was offered the position during a discussion on 31 July. The parties agreed the job, pay and hours, with a start date of Monday 5 August. Ms Leech was told orally at some point that the job involved a three-month trial, but no written trial provision was provided with the offer.

Ms Leech followed up asking for the employment documents. On Friday 2 August, EICL emailed confirming that she could start at 7.30am on Monday. The email did not say the offer was conditional on a written agreement or refer to a 90-day trial.

Agreement presented on the first morning

Ms Leech arrived at 7.15am on 5 August and was presented with the proposed employment agreement for the first time. She reviewed it at a desk and negotiated changes, including increasing the notice period from two weeks to four weeks and correcting the sick-leave entitlement. The parties then signed the agreement before she went upstairs to begin her ordinary duties.

The written agreement contained a 90-day trial clause. EICL argued the employment did not commence until 8am, after the document was signed, because those were the normal hours recorded in the agreement and payroll began at that time.

She was already an employee

Trial periods remove important statutory protections and must be strictly compliant. The Authority focused on whether Ms Leech had already become an employee before the written trial provision was entered into.

By 5 August the parties had already agreed the essential terms of the job: the work, pay and hours. Employment had been offered and accepted, their emails confirmed the arrangement, and EICL had directed Ms Leech to report for work at 7.30am. That was enough to create a binding employment relationship before the written agreement was signed.

The fact that Ms Leech had not yet started her ordinary duties did not preserve the trial. Even on EICL's alternative argument, it had specifically directed her to start at 7.30am. A contractual reference to normal hours beginning at 8am and payroll commencing then did not alter when employment began.

An oral discussion about a trial could not cure the problem. The statutory scheme requires mutual agreement to the trial provision in writing before the person becomes an employee. EICL therefore could not rely on the clause signed that morning.

Dismissed without reasons or process

On 18 October, EICL called Ms Leech into a meeting without notice and told her that her employment was being terminated under the trial period. It gave no reasons and initially paid only two weeks' notice despite the signed agreement having been amended to four weeks. The remaining notice was paid after Ms Leech supplied the amended clause.

Once the trial clause was unavailable, EICL had to justify the dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. A dismissal communicated without advance notice, reasons or any opportunity to respond could not meet that test. The dismissal was unjustified.

Lost remuneration and compensation

The Authority accepted Ms Leech's evidence of loss and her efforts to find replacement employment. It awarded three months' lost remuneration of $21,250 gross.

The sudden dismissal was shocking and embarrassing, particularly because no concerns or performance process had preceded it. Ms Leech found it difficult to obtain another job in New Zealand and ultimately relocated to Australia. Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings was fixed at $13,000.

The Authority rejected any contribution reduction. EICL's later suggestions that Ms Leech was not a good cultural fit or had an overly strong style had not been raised with enough clarity during employment to let her understand and address them.

Why this case matters

Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited is a warning against leaving the employment agreement until the employee's first morning. The issue is not merely whether the document is signed before productive work begins. A prior unconditional offer and acceptance of the essential terms can mean the person is already an employee and therefore cannot then be placed on a trial period.

The safest process is to provide the proposed agreement with the written offer, allow a reasonable opportunity to seek advice, resolve any amendments and obtain signed agreement to the trial provision before employment becomes binding or any work begins.

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.