WILKINS v DD GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 536

Kelly Wilkins challenged a dismissal said to be made under a 90-day trial period. The ERA held DD Group Holdings could not rely on the trial clause because the employment agreement had not been signed before Ms Wilkins started paid training. The dismissal was unjustified, although remedies were reduced by 70% for contribution.

Story in plain English

DD Group Holdings offered Ms Wilkins employment with a 90-day trial clause. Before the agreement was signed, she attended a three-day training course that the employer agreed to pay her for. The employer later treated that training as the start of her employment and dismissed her under the trial clause.

The ERA held that a trial period must be contained in a written employment agreement signed before employment starts. Because Ms Wilkins had already started paid training before signing, the employer could not rely on the trial provision. The dismissal was therefore unjustified.

Before contribution, the Authority assessed $25,000 gross lost remuneration and $8,000 compensation. It then reduced both remedies by 70% because of Ms Wilkins' conduct during the training course, resulting in awards of $7,500 gross and $2,400 respectively. Costs were reserved.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are WILKINS (employee) and DD GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 19 August 2025.
• Authority member: Eleanor Robinson.

Key events

• On 2 May 2024 DD Group Holdings sent Ms Wilkins an employment agreement containing a 90-day trial clause.
• Ms Wilkins attended paid training from 6 to 8 May 2024. She handed over the signed agreement on 8 May, after the training had already started.
• On 14 May 2024 the employer terminated her employment and said it was relying on the trial period.
• Ms Wilkins raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal on 18 June 2024.
• The ERA treated the paid training as the commencement of employment, making the later-signed trial agreement ineffective.

Decision markers

• The paid training was treated as the start of employment.
• The employment agreement had not been signed before employment started, so DD Group Holdings could not rely on the 90-day trial clause.
• The dismissal was unjustified.
• The Authority reduced lost remuneration and compensation by 70% for contribution.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost remuneration: $7,500.00 gross (after a 70% contribution reduction)
• Compensation: $2,400.00 (after a 70% contribution reduction)
• Filing fee: $71.55
• 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

• Sign before any work starts: paid induction or training can mark the beginning of employment. A trial agreement signed afterwards may be too late.
• Trial periods require strict compliance: employers relying on a 90-day trial need the statutory requirements satisfied before employment begins.
• Winning the dismissal claim does not guarantee full remedies: employee conduct can still lead to a substantial contribution reduction.

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.