Search Employment Law

Melissa Williams was dismissed after a single day driving for S & M Haulage, which believed a 90-day trial applied and had genuine safety and resourcing concerns about her readiness for the role. The ERA examined whether there was a valid trial clause and whether she was given any chance to respond before termination.

George King was dismissed by Off the Wall Construction under a purported 90-day trial. The decisive issue was timing: he had already performed paid work before signing the agreement containing the trial provision.

Kaytlin Pinder was dismissed under a purported 90-day trial period. The key issue was whether the trial provision had been validly agreed before she became an employee, together with related failures to provide proper employment documentation.

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.

Employer checklist for using a 90-day trial period: drafting the clause, signing before work starts, calculating the period, giving termination notice and avoiding defects that can revive a personal grievance.

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.

The difference between a probationary period and a statutory 90-day trial, and the fair process an employer must still follow before dismissing an employee on probation.

North Beach relied on a 90-day trial clause to argue Noel Camacho could not bring an unjustified-dismissal grievance, but the same employment agreement also contained a probation clause that conflicted with the trial wording.