ClickCease

Results for poor performance

Showing 1-8 of 23 results
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: It later said the principal reason was her failure to obtain the LCQ and meet essential contractual requirements, although the contemporaneous communications relied more generally on poor performance.
Gemma Pedersen v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 108 - dismissed by WhatsApp on KPI probation grounds without proper training; unjustified disadvantage and dismissal upheld; $15,917.48 ordered

Retail assistant Gemma Pedersen was dismissed by WhatsApp/email during a six-month probation period for allegedly missing sales KPIs. She said she had not received the promised practical training and had never been put through a genuine performance process before termination.

Matched passage: If you measure performance by KPIs, you need to ensure training and tools are in place before treating KPI results as a basis to terminate.
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: The determination records that Although Ms Huynh has raised general claims that there was poor performance by Ms Chung, these allegations were not raised at the time either, and so cannot be relied on to justify her dismissal.
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: I also consider that there is no evidence of poor performance which might have resulted in her eventual dismissal.
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: I also consider that there is no evidence of poor performance which might have resulted in her eventual dismissal.
Lautusi Isaako v ABS Builders Limited [2025] NZERA 678 - Employee status confirmed, dismissal by text, 3 months lost wages, $15k compensation, holiday pay arrears, costs

Lautusi Isaako worked full-time for ABS Builders under day-to-day direction but the respondents disputed aspects of the employment relationship and later ended his work by text after raising performance concerns for the first time. The case also involved public-holiday, annual-leave and record-keeping failures.

Matched passage: Performance concerns must be raised and managed: If there are performance issues, the employee must be told and given a fair opportunity to improve and respond.
Sirikanya Pankhum v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 149 - WhatsApp dismissal during probation, no process; $12,500 compensation, $7,873.92 lost wages, $311.28 holiday pay

Sirikanya Pankhum was working under a six-month probation clause when Super Vape Store ended her employment by WhatsApp. A probationary arrangement did not remove the requirement for the employer to identify concerns, hear her response and use a fair dismissal process.

Matched passage: Key findings in plain English Probation is not a free pass: an employer can dismiss for poor performance, but it must still act fairly and reasonably and follow a fair process.
DUN TRAN v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 73 - dismissal and employment-entitlement claims partly successful

Dun Tran's employment dispute with Huynh involved the ending of the employment relationship together with claims about pay and workplace treatment. The ERA had to separate the dismissal issue from the employment-standard claims and determine which alleged breaches were actually established.

Matched passage: After that, Although Ms Huynh has raised allegations of poor performance by Ms Dung Tran, and said generally that she (quoted wording omitted), neither of these issues were raised with Ms Dung Tran at the time either, and so cannot be relied on to justify her dismissal.

Browse topics