Melissa Williams v S & M Haulage Limited (t/a Johnson Log Haulage) [2026] NZERA 74

A short-employment dismissal case where the employer tried to rely on a 90-day trial clause that the Authority found was not in the signed agreement. The dismissal was still held to be unjustified on process (no discussion or chance to respond), even though the employer had real safety and resourcing concerns. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background and what happened

The employer was a small haulage company in the South Waikato region. Ms Williams was recruited quickly for a full-time permanent truck driver role. The directors did not do reference checks, did not sight her Class 5 licence, and did not verify her experience before making the offer. The parties accepted she was "green", and they agreed on a lower hourly rate because the employer expected she would need a three-month training period.

The dispute escalated shortly before the agreed start date. Ms Williams did an induction module from home and washed a trailer, and she also went on a ride-along with a contractor driver (anonymised in the determination). On her first day (9 September 2024) she drove with the contractor as passenger. The employer says the contractor reported serious safety concerns and the employer reviewed in-cab footage, forming a view that Ms Williams did not have the experience needed for the role.

On 11 September 2024, after only one day of work as a driver, the employer terminated Ms Williams by email, stating it was "under the 90-day clause". Ms Williams raised a personal grievance the next day.

Trial period vs probation: why the 90-day trial clause failed

This case turned first on paperwork. A valid 90-day trial clause (s 67A) prevents an unjustified dismissal grievance, so the Authority had to decide what agreement Ms Williams actually received and signed. Two versions of the agreement were produced: Ms Williams' version did not contain a trial period clause; the employer's version did.

The Authority accepted that the employer genuinely believed there was a 90-day trial clause, but found Ms Williams' version was the one sent to her and downloaded to her phone. In other words, the agreement she received contained only a probationary period, not a trial period. That matters because probation does not remove the right to bring an unjustified dismissal grievance (the normal s 103A test still applies).

Unjustified dismissal: substantive concerns accepted, but process failed

The Authority accepted that the employer had genuine safety concerns and that, for a small haulage operation, it was not viable to have a truck off the road for extensive training. The Authority also accepted the employer relied on information about Ms Williams' experience which, in practice, did not match what the role required.

However, the dismissal was still held unjustified because the employer did not act as a fair and reasonable employer procedurally. Even in a safety context, the Authority found the employer should have discussed the concerns with Ms Williams and given her an opportunity to respond before summarily dismissing her. The process failures were not minor and resulted in unfair treatment.

Wage arrears and payment record issues

Ms Williams also claimed wage arrears for pre-start activities and her first day. After discussion at the investigation meeting, the Authority adopted reduced time allowances for the pre-start tasks (90 minutes for the induction and three hours for washing the trailer). Ms Williams did not pursue payment for the ride-along day (she said she did not expect to be paid for it).

Penalty claims relating to wage payment details and record-keeping were declined on the evidence. The employer said it did not have Ms Williams' bank details until shortly before the investigation meeting and could not pay earlier.

Remedies and contribution

The Authority assessed compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings at $5,000, taking into account the very short duration of employment, the suddenness of the dismissal, and Ms Williams' ability to find new work within about two weeks.

The Authority awarded lost wages for the two-week period without income, calculated as $2,462.40 gross (40 hours/week at $28.50/hour plus 8% holiday pay).

The Authority then applied a contribution reduction: it found Ms Williams' lack of Class 5 experience (including that she only obtained the Class 5 licence on 13 June 2024) and how her experience was conveyed contributed significantly to the situation. A 20% reduction was applied, reducing compensation from $5,000 to $4,000 (lost wages remained $2,462.40), producing a combined remedies figure of $6,462.40.

Practical takeaways

• Trial periods are strict: if the clause is not in the signed agreement, the employer cannot rely on it later. Probation is different and does not remove PG rights.
• Safety concerns do not cancel basic fairness: even if an employer needs to act quickly, it should still put concerns to the employee and hear their response before dismissal.
• Recruitment shortcuts create risk: not checking licences, experience, or references before hiring can come back as process risk later.
• Contribution can reduce compensation: where the employee's conduct materially contributes, the Authority may reduce remedies (here, by 20%).

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.