![George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14 - 90-day trial invalid, unjustified dismissal](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
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.
Search employment law articles and guides
Use the search box below (or in the menu bar above) to find topics and articles.
Search
Find employment law articles and guides quickly.
Tip: press / to search
Search tips
- Use quotes for exact phrases, eg "unfair dismissal".
- Use +word to require, -word to exclude, eg +redundancy -trial.
- Use OR to broaden, eg dismissal OR redundancy.
Popular searches
Browse topics
Unfair Dismissal (Unjustified Dismissal)
(20)
Redundancy
(38)
Personal Grievance (PG)
(16)
90 Day Trial Period (NZ)
(26)
Constructive Dismissal
(31)
Unjustified Disadvantage
(80)
Disciplinary Meetings and Investigations
(7)
Suspension from Work
(9)
Performance Management and PIPs
(5)
Workplace Bullying
(4)
Medical Incapacity Dismissal
(7)
Probationary Periods
(6)
No Win No Fee
(6)
Employment Lawyers and Advocates
(13)
Employment Mediation
(7)
Employment Relations Authority
(3)
Unfair Dismissal (Unjustified Dismissal) Case Summaries
(228)
Holidays Act
(11)
Casual Employment
(9)
Costs (ERA and Employment Court)
(7)
Employment Court
(10)
Employment Court Case Summaries
(11)
Special Interest Cases
(4)
Employment Law News and Opinion
(18)
Covid-19 Updates
(3)
Results for ERA
Showing 105-112 of 356 results
Summary of Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8.
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 is an unjustified dismissal determination.
The ERA accepted the employer had genuine attendance concerns and had raised them, but held the dismissal unjustified because the worker was not given a final chance to understand the seriousness of.
Unfair Dismissal (Unjustified Dismissal) Case Summaries | ERA New Zealand
90 Day Trial Period (NZ)
Probationary Periods
The ERA held the clauses created.
ERA accepted serious food safety and hygiene deficiencies justified dismissal in substance, but found the suspension and termination process was flawed and unfair.
The ERA held there was a serious question to be.
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.
Browse topics
Popular topics
All topics
Dismissal & Job Loss
Employment Terms & Leave
Problems at Work
Getting Help
ERA & Employment Court
Cases, News & Commentary
No matching topic. Press Enter to search all employment law content.