The Authority found a constructive dismissal was established. In this case Mr Paetz was not dismissed by Solly's, he resigned.
NZ 90 day trial periods explained for employers and employees. When a trial can block an unjustified dismissal Personal Grievance (PG), and the common mistakes that make trials invalid.
A valid 90 day trial period can prevent a Personal Grievance (PG) for unjustified dismissal. However, the legal requirements are strict. Small drafting or timing errors often invalidate a trial clause and can reopen an unfair dismissal claim.
Trial periods are governed by section 67A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. If the trial is valid, an employee cannot bring a PG or legal proceedings about dismissal. The employer must still meet minimum legal obligations (pay, leave, good faith, health and safety, and prohibited conduct rules).
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 trial period only removes dismissal challenge rights, and only if it is valid. Depending on the facts, other claims can still exist, including:
A probationary period is different. Employers generally must still have good reasons and follow a fair process to dismiss during probation. A trial period (if valid) can limit dismissal challenge rights, but only for dismissal and only if the statutory requirements are met.
Trial period risk is usually created by onboarding errors and sloppy notice. We can review your agreements and templates, and help you implement a repeatable hiring and termination process.
Employer advice and dispute defenceThe 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.
Employee Case FormThe Authority found a constructive dismissal was established. In this case Mr Paetz was not dismissed by Solly's, he resigned.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). Ms Thing (quoted wording omitted) and returns to work [18] On 30 April 2022, Ms Thing informed Ms Liu via WeChat message that she was resigning as she did not think the job was...
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). This was confirmed in writing by way of an undated letter, stating that she was being dismissed in accordance with the trial period in her employment agreement, and would receive...
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). She was dismissed on 26 December 2023 under a 90-day trial period after she had been working for 100 days.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). She was then terminated by way of an emailed letter later that day and did not understand what she had done wrong or what Ms Huynh meant as she had been at work.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). On 13 December 2023, Ms Huynh sent Ms Lien a letter alleging that she was working for another salon, and that this could amount to serious misconduct and a conflict of interest.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). Ms Huynh does not deny the comments attributed to her by Ms Trang Bui and others at the staff meeting on 17 December 2023, that staff were (quoted wording omitted), had (quoted...
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). She was then emailed a termination letter at 10.00 pm on 26 December 2023.