ClickCease

Results for probationary period

Showing 1-8 of 8 results
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: A probationary period is supposed to be set up so both parties can succeed, not fail.
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: There was no probationary period either Adulto's progress-review document and termination letter referred to an extended trial or probationary period.
Noel Jr Camacho v North Beach Limited [2025] NZERA 824 - 90-day trial clause held ineffective because probation and trial terms conflicted; employee may bring PG

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.

Matched passage: The key contract problem: trial period and probation were both in the agreement The agreement contained: A 90 day trial period clause saying dismissal could occur on the trial notice period and (if used) Mr Camacho could not bring a dismissal PG.
Melissa Williams v S & M Haulage Limited (t/a Johnson Log Haulage) [2026] NZERA 74 - truck driver dismissed after one day; no valid 90-day trial clause; unjustified dismissal on process; remedies reduced for contribution

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.

Matched passage: Two versions of the agreement were produced: Ms Williams' version did not contain a trial period clause; the employer's version did.
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: pdf"; } Sirikanya Pankhum v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 149 A detailed, plain-English summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination about a probation-period dismissal carried out by WhatsApp message.
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: 48 (gross) for the gap period.
Angus Jowitt v Gokula Music Limited [2026] NZERA 297 - music shop worker dismissed by text after coffee dispute; wage arrears, holidays, compensation and penalties ordered

Angus Jowitt worked in a music shop under a disputed contractor-or-employee arrangement and was paid cash below the rate the employer accepted had been agreed. After a conflict over work and coffee, the employer later relied on resignation rather than dismissal.

Matched passage: Mr Masson also referred to the arrangement as a kind of trial period.
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 probation and "90 day" issue The employment agreement contained a probation provision (per Employment Relations Act 2000, section 67), but it did not contain a compliant statutory trial period clause (section 67A).

Browse topics