Search Employment Law

Southshore Marine attempted to rely on a 90-day trial when dismissing Mr Gillard after concerns about his work. The timing of when employment actually commenced and the complete absence of a fair performance, conduct or capacity process were central issues.

A nail technician was dismissed during a purported 90-day trial after seeking advice about her employment rights. The employer had not complied with the notice requirement in its own trial clause.

Electrical Importing Co agreed Valerie Leech's core job terms and told her when to start before presenting a written employment agreement containing a 90-day trial clause. It later relied on that clause to dismiss her.

Ms Chung was dismissed by email late on Boxing Day after about 100 days of work, with the employer purporting to rely on a 90-day trial period. General performance criticisms were raised later but had not formed a fair dismissal process at the time.

Ms Cuc was dismissed with one week's notice under what the nail-salon employer said was a 90-day trial period. She said the real issue was that she was outspoken about her employment rights, while performance criticisms were advanced later in the ERA proceeding.

Ms Lien was dismissed from a nail salon after allegations about outside work and later criticism of her performance. The employer also relied on a 90-day trial defence and disputed wages, although the alleged performance concerns had not been properly raised during employment.

Jennifer Jacobsen was dismissed by email only days into part-time work for Cube Innovations. Cube relied on a 90-day trial even though the evidence indicated she had started work before signing the agreement and the employer had not given the contractual notice required by the clause.