ClickCease

Results for 90 day trial

Showing 9-16 of 255 results
Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

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.

Matched passage: Ms Leech was told orally at some point that the job involved a three-month trial, but no written trial provision was provided with the offer.
CHUNG v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 69 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal unjustified

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.

Matched passage: ... (Wellington) Determination date: 14 February 2025 Outcome: Unjustified dismissal found; 90-day trial defence rejected; remedies ordered. Story in plain English This decision deals with a dismissal during what the employer said was a 90-day trial period, and the remedies ...
CUC v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 68 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal unjustified

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.

Matched passage: ... (Wellington) Determination date: 14 February 2025 Outcome: Unjustified dismissal found; 90-day trial defence rejected; remedies ordered. Story in plain English This decision deals with a dismissal during what the employer said was a 90-day trial period, and the remedies ...
LIEN v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 70 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal and underpayment grievance succeed

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.

Matched passage: ... (Wellington) Determination date: 14 February 2025 Outcome: Unjustified dismissal found; 90-day trial defence rejected; remedies ordered. Story in plain English This decision deals with a dismissal during what the employer said was a 90-day trial period, and the remedies ...
Jennifer Jacobsen v Cube Innovations Limited [2026] NZERA 356 - invalid trial period, no notice, and dismissal by email

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.

Matched passage: The agreement identified 17 February 2025 as the commencement date and included a 90-day trial period clause.
Briar Kennedy v Adulto HR Limited [2026] NZERA 537 - missing trial clause and predetermined performance dismissal

Adulto HR believed Briar Kennedy was on a 90-day trial, but the agreement given after she started contained no trial clause. The employer then purported to extend the nonexistent trial into probation and dismissed her after 97 days on qualification and performance grounds.

Matched passage: The accompanying offer email said the agreement contained a 90-day trial period.
Brad Capper v CJS Construction [2023] NZERA 314 - unjustified dismissal; 50% contribution; no lost wages

Brad Capper's short employment with CJS Construction ended in a dismissal that the employer did not attempt to justify under a 90-day trial clause. The case turned on dismissal fairness, his own contribution and whether he had proved efforts to mitigate lost wages.

Matched passage: 90-day trial point Mr Capper assumed the dismissal was under a 90-day trial provision, but the Authority found CJS had not actually purported to invoke a trial period.
Yang (Helen) Feng v Dong Construction and Dong Wang [2026] NZERA 132 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal and entitlement breaches established

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.

Matched passage: Does the Authority have jurisdiction over Ms Feng's unjustified dismissal grievance or did the trial period clause in her employment agreement preclude that?

Browse topics