ClickCease

Results for 90 day trial

Showing 33-40 of 255 results
Gary Cotton v Darcee Gosling, Gosling Solutions Limited, and Rob Ralston [2022] NZERA 90 - employer identity dispute; sole trader held liable; summary dismissal unjustified; $19, - orders for lost wages, arrears, holiday pay, and compensation

Gary Cotton's case required the ERA to identify who his employer actually was after work performed through Gosling Solutions and dealings involving Darcee Gosling and Rob Ralston. The case also concerned a summary termination and claims for unpaid employment entitlements.

Matched passage: He started work the next day.
Jimmy Nelson v The Digger Man Limited [2025] NZERA 835 - dismissal for unexplained absences held unjustified on process; remedies reduced 50% for contribution; $720 lost wages and $5,000 compensation

Jimmy Nelson was dismissed by The Digger Man after repeated attendance problems and unexplained absences. The employer had genuine concerns, but the issue was whether it gave him a final, fair opportunity to understand the seriousness of the latest incidents and explain himself before termination.

Matched passage: Preliminary points raised and rejected Mr Nelson argued he had been dismissed under a 90 day trial period and that the trial was invalid because he had started working earlier.
Kyle Horsefield v Eurocars Limited [2026] NZERA 293 - car salesperson labelled casual was a permanent employee; dismissal by text message unjustified; $12,345 ordered

Kyle Horsefield sold cars for Eurocars under an arrangement labelled casual, but his work had the characteristics of ongoing employment. The employer later ended the relationship by text, raising both employment-status and dismissal-justification issues.

Matched passage: Mr Horsefield also said he suggested that Eurocars use a 90-day trial period clause instead if the employer wanted time to assess suitability.
Lekeisha Ramsay v National Storage Ltd [2025] NZERA 269 - Probationary period dismissal held unjustified; $9,000 compensation + $14,040.40 lost wages; penalties dismissed

Lekeisha Ramsay was dismissed by National Storage just over three months into employment under a probationary arrangement. The ERA examined attendance and performance concerns, the adequacy of warnings and whether the employer had given her a fair opportunity to improve and respond before termination.

Matched passage: Probationary period vs 90-day trial This case involved a probationary period clause - not a 90-day trial period under the Act.
Sophie Kennett v Polygon GY Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 405 - engineered resignation, redundancy and Holidays Act entitlements

Sophie Kennett resigned from Polygon GY Developments after a course of conduct she said was designed to force her out, in a context also involving a claimed redundancy and unpaid Holidays Act entitlements. The ERA examined the reality of the resignation rather than only its formal label.

Matched passage: The correspondence assumed continuation of employment, notwithstanding the artificial break and annual-holiday payout.
Junchen Xu v Aurora Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 320 - quantity surveyor wins unpaid wages, holiday pay and unjustified redundancy claim

Aurora Developments disputed when quantity surveyor Junchen Xu became an employee, saying his first month was only unpaid learning and observation, and later made him redundant without a proposal or consultation. He also claimed wages, incentives and holiday entitlements.

Matched passage: Despite the payments ADL had already made, the ERA found Mr Xu was still entitled to annual holiday pay under the Holidays Act 2003.
Sasha Lee v JNJ Management Limited and National Holdings Limited [2026] NZERA 309 - redundancy unjustified, duties removed without consultation, wage arrears and holiday pay ordered

Sasha Lee performed management, HR and operational work across JNJ group businesses before duties were removed and her position was later declared redundant. She challenged both the unilateral reduction of responsibilities and the redundancy process, together with wage and holiday-pay issues.

Matched passage: 75 gross for annual holiday pay.
Tammy Maxine Stevenson v Mountain Chalets (2005) Limited [2025] NZERA 248 - not dismissed, but unjustified disadvantage; casual label rejected, $8,000 compensation and holiday pay recalculation

Tammy Stevenson had worked regular cleaning hours for Mountain Chalets for years despite the employer describing her as casual. A dispute over guaranteed hours and a phone conversation then led her to claim dismissal and challenge the employer's treatment of her employment status and holiday entitlements.

Matched passage: In practice, the employee said her pattern of work was consistently around 20 to 25 hours per week, spread across several days, and she was expected to arrange leave with the owners.

Browse topics