NZ 90-day trial period law explained. If the trial clause or notice is defective, you may still raise a Personal Grievance (PG) for unjustified dismissal. Check common mistakes.
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.
NZ 90-day trial period law explained. If the trial clause or notice is defective, you may still raise a Personal Grievance (PG) for unjustified dismissal. Check common mistakes.
![Fvg v Yjn [2026] NZERA 242 - redundancy, 90 day trial; what the ERA decided and what was ordered](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
The Authority made monetary and/or other orders. A structural engineer referred to by the randomly chosen letters FVG, was employed from early 2022 by a company YJN, also identified by such chosen letters. That company had recently... Key amounts include other payments of $7,000, $27,000.
An administrator was told by an external HR consultant that her employment would be ended under a 90 day trial, then given the option to resign instead. The ERA held she resigned, but the resignation was a constructive dismissal because it was a choice between resignation and dismissal.
Outcome: see the Authority's findings and orders in the embedded determination. At the material time, the first respondent, Dong Construction Limited (Dong Construction), was an Accredited Employer under Immigration New Zealand's (INZ's) Accredited Employer Work Visa Sc...
A truck driver worked one day for a small Waikato haulage company before being terminated by email under a supposed 90-day trial clause. The ERA found the trial clause was not in the signed agreement (only a probation clause), so the employee could bring an unjustified dismissal claim. Although...
In George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14, the ERA held the 90-day trial was invalid because the employee had already worked (and been paid) before signing. The dismissal was unjustified and the Authority awarded lost wages and compensation.
The ERA held North Beach could not rely on a 90-day trial clause where the same employment agreement also contained a conflicting probation clause. The employee could bring an unjustified dismissal personal grievance.
An ERA finding of unjustified dismissal where the employer tried to rely on a trial period clause that did not meet s 67A requirements and then failed to engage with the Authority's investigation. The Authority ordered $30,087.30 gross including $13,056 lost remuneration, $10,000 distress...