ClickCease

Results for 90 day trial

Showing 25-32 of 255 results
LAZARO v WAIMEA CONTRACT CARRIERS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 472 - no dismissal at December meeting; later termination and notice addressed

Mr Lazaro said Waimea Contract Carriers dismissed him at a 4 December meeting; the employer said he was merely suspended on full pay while training and other options were considered, and that employment ended later after he refused to return.

Matched passage: In the end, Ms McIntyre responded to this email with a letter the next day, 5 December 2023.
PUTAANGA v MOVE FREIGHT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 425 - medical-incapacity dismissal and unsafe-work disadvantage

MOVE Freight dismissed Mr Putaanga for medical incapacity after a workplace accident and a lengthy period assessing his prospects of returning to full-time work. He also alleged the employer had failed to provide a safe workplace and that this caused unjustified disadvantage.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
LI v MASTER Z FOOD LIMITED [2025] NZERA 335 - WeChat evidence showed employer ended employment

Master Z Food said Ms Li resigned during an April 2023 meeting; Li said she was told the decision had already been made to dismiss her and she could merely work out the week. Contemporary WeChat messages were central to resolving who ended the employment.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
PAETZ v SOLLY'S FREIGHT (1978) LIMITED [2025] NZERA 319 - The Authority found a constructive dismissal was established.

Mr Paetz resigned from Solly's Freight after disputes about excessive hours and the employer's failure to conduct a required pay review. He argued those ongoing breaches caused his resignation and also independently disadvantaged him while employed.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
THING v SOUTH POLE IP HOLDING (NZ) LIMITED [2025] NZERA 142 - dismissal theory fails in part but disadvantage grievance succeeds

Ms Thing's dispute with South Pole IP Holding concerned whether the end of her employment was a dismissal or resignation and whether the employer's earlier conduct had unjustifiably disadvantaged her. The case required the ERA to distinguish direct or constructive dismissal from separate disadvantage grievances.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
DRUMMOND v THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY [2025] NZERA 82 - 90-day limit: warning grievance in time, earlier claims out

Jackson Drummond sought to pursue a series of disadvantage, discrimination and good-faith complaints against Massey University, some dating back many months before his December 2023 grievance letter. The preliminary issue was which claims had actually been raised within the statutory 90-day period.

Matched passage: ... notes that In terms of the alleged cumulative events, Mr Drummond submits that the 90- day timeframe started on the day of the last event, that being 3 November 2023, and that there was a continuous course of action from April 2023 to November 2023 that amounted to ...
Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52 - Unjustified dismissal, probation clause misused

Mere Broughton was dismissed after 106 days at The Whanau Ora Community Clinic. Her agreement contained a probation clause, and the dispute centred on the employer's attempt to use that clause as a shortcut to termination rather than carrying out a substantively justified and fair process.

Matched passage: The determination is a useful reminder that probation clauses and 90 day trial periods are different legal tools, and employers cannot "backdate" a probation decision after the period has already ended.
Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Matched passage: There was no 90-day trial clause.

Browse topics