Search Employment Law

A practical guide to New Zealand 90-day trial dismissals: when the clause is valid, the start date and notice requirements, and the mistakes that can leave an employer exposed to a personal grievance.

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.

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.

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.

Courtney Jansen was told by an external HR consultant that BDS Chartered Accountants would end her employment under a 90-day trial, but was offered the option of resigning instead. The case turned on whether choosing resignation in the face of an announced dismissal was truly voluntary.

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.

DD Group Holdings relied on a 90-day trial clause to dismiss Kelly Wilkins, but she had already begun paid training before the employment agreement containing the clause was signed. Her own conduct was also relevant to remedies.