A practical guide to New Zealand 90-day trial dismissals: when the clause is valid, the start date and notice requirements, and the mistakes that can leave an employer exposed to a personal grievance.
NZ 90 day trial periods explained for employees. When a valid trial can restrict unjustified dismissal and dismissal-related disadvantage claims, and the common mistakes that can make a trial invalid.
A valid 90 day trial period can restrict a Personal Grievance (PG) for unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage that relates to the dismissal. However, the legal requirements are strict. If the statutory trial requirements are not met, the employee may still be able to challenge the dismissal.
Trial periods are governed by section 67A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. If the trial is valid, the Act restricts an unjustified dismissal grievance and an unjustified disadvantage grievance to the extent the disadvantage relates to the dismissal. Other employment rights and other PG grounds can remain available depending on the facts.
These are common failure points we see in practice:
Even with a correctly drafted clause, employers often get the notice process wrong. Notice must be issued within the trial period and must comply with the agreement's requirements.
Notice must be given during the trial period. The last day of employment can fall after the trial ends, as long as notice was delivered in time.
A valid trial period primarily restricts claims about the dismissal. Since 21 February 2026, the Act expressly includes an unjustified disadvantage grievance where the alleged disadvantage relates to the dismissal. Other personal grievance grounds and employment claims can still remain, depending on the facts, including:
A probationary period is different. Employers generally must still have good reasons and follow a fair process to dismiss during probation. A valid trial period can bar an unjustified dismissal grievance and an unjustified disadvantage grievance to the extent the disadvantage relates to the dismissal. Other grievance grounds remain available subject to their own requirements.
Put together the signed agreement, offer correspondence, evidence of when work actually started, and the termination notice. Those documents usually determine whether the employer can rely on the trial provision.
Check My CaseThe fastest way is to submit the case form with a short timeline and key documents. We will assess whether the trial was valid and what your best next step is.
Check My CaseEmployers often describe a dismissal as a "90-day trial dismissal" as though that ends the analysis. It does not. The employment agreement, when it was signed, whether the employee was genuinely new, the wording of the clause and the timing and form of notice all need to be checked against what actually happened.
If the statutory trial requirements were not satisfied, the employee may still be able to pursue an unjustified dismissal Personal Grievance. Other claims can also remain available even where the trial itself is valid.
A practical guide to New Zealand 90-day trial dismissals: when the clause is valid, the start date and notice requirements, and the mistakes that can leave an employer exposed to a personal grievance.
![FVG v YJN [2026] NZERA 242 - suspension and dismissal unjustified; remedies reduced 30% for contribution](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
FVG, a structural engineer, challenged her suspension, the handling of bullying and performance concerns, and her eventual dismissal by YJN. The case required the ERA to separate several disadvantage allegations from the fairness of the final dismissal process.
Courtney Jansen was told by an external HR consultant that BDS Chartered Accountants would end her employment under a 90-day trial, but was offered the option of resigning instead. The case turned on whether choosing resignation in the face of an announced dismissal was truly voluntary.
Yang (Helen) Feng worked for Dong Construction in circumstances involving a disputed trial period and claims for unpaid employment entitlements. The ERA examined whether the trial clause could lawfully prevent a dismissal grievance and what wages or other payments remained owing.
Melissa Williams was dismissed after a single day driving for S & M Haulage, which believed a 90-day trial applied and had genuine safety and resourcing concerns about her readiness for the role. The ERA examined whether there was a valid trial clause and whether she was given any chance to respond before termination.
George King was dismissed by Off the Wall Construction under a purported 90-day trial. The decisive issue was timing: he had already performed paid work before signing the agreement containing the trial provision.
North Beach relied on a 90-day trial clause to argue Noel Camacho could not bring an unjustified-dismissal grievance, but the same employment agreement also contained a probation clause that conflicted with the trial wording.
Shania Mortimer was dismissed by Auckland Steam 'N' Dry under a purported trial period. The dispute concerned whether the trial clause was legally effective, whether any dismissal process occurred, and the employer's wage and record-keeping compliance.