ClickCease

Results for trial period dismissal

Showing 1-8 of 169 results
Yang (Helen) Feng v Dong Construction and Dong Wang [2026] NZERA 132 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal and entitlement breaches established

Yang (Helen) Feng worked for Dong Construction in circumstances involving a disputed trial period and claims for unpaid employment entitlements. The ERA examined whether the trial clause could lawfully prevent a dismissal grievance and what wages or other payments remained owing.

Matched passage: Does the Authority have jurisdiction over Ms Feng's unjustified dismissal grievance or did the trial period clause in her employment agreement preclude that?
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: ... 9-12 September 2024 (Wellington) Determination date: 14 February 2025 Outcome: Unjustified dismissal found; 90-day trial defence rejected; remedies ordered. Story in plain English This decision deals with a dismissal during what the employer said was a 90-day trial period, and ...
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: ... 9-12 September 2024 (Wellington) Determination date: 14 February 2025 Outcome: Unjustified dismissal found; 90-day trial defence rejected; remedies ordered. Story in plain English This decision deals with a dismissal during what the employer said was a 90-day trial period, and ...
Jennifer Jacobsen v Cube Innovations Limited [2026] NZERA 356 - invalid trial period, no notice, and dismissal by email

Jennifer Jacobsen was dismissed by email only days into part-time work for Cube Innovations. Cube relied on a 90-day trial even though the evidence indicated she had started work before signing the agreement and the employer had not given the contractual notice required by the clause.

Matched passage: That failure meant the trial period could not protect the 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: ... 9-12 September 2024 (Wellington) Determination date: 14 February 2025 Outcome: Unjustified dismissal found; 90-day trial defence rejected; remedies ordered. Story in plain English This decision deals with a dismissal during what the employer said was a 90-day trial period, and ...
Bridget Addy v Auckland Steam 'N' Dry Limited and Graeme Stephens [2022] NZERA 657 - constructive dismissal after a 'trial period' threat by text; $8,000 compensation, $3,600 reimbursement, $2,000 penalty

Auckland Steam 'N' Dry raised performance concerns with Bridget Addy by text and threatened that she would not make it through a supposed three-month trial, although her agreement contained no trial clause. She resigned in response.

Matched passage: No trial period existed: there was no written employment agreement providing for a trial period, so the employer was not entitled to suggest the employee was on a trial.
Invalid trial period clause, no process, and wage record failures - Shania Mortimer v Auckland Steam 'N' Dry Limited [2025] NZERA 808; $30,087.30 ordered (lost remuneration and distress compensation)

Shania Mortimer was dismissed by Auckland Steam 'N' Dry under a purported trial period. The dispute concerned whether the trial clause was legally effective, whether any dismissal process occurred, and the employer's wage and record-keeping compliance.

Matched passage: On the legal issues, the Authority found the trial period clause was invalid because it did not include the required statement that an employee dismissed in the trial period cannot bring a personal grievance.
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.

Browse topics