The employer had grounds for the dismissal but the paperwork said otherwise
A New Zealand employer fired a truck driver after one day using a trial period clause that was never in her contract.
On February 13, 2026, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ruled that S&M Haulage Limited, a small South Waikato trucking company trading as Johnson Log Haulage, had unjustifiably dismissed Melissa Williams, ordering it to pay a total of $6,847.15 in compensation, lost wages, and wage arrears.
Williams was hired on September 9, 2024. She worked one day before being let go on September 11, 2024, by email, "under the 90-day clause of your employment." The problem? That clause was not in the employment agreement she had actually signed.
A co-director, Stephanie Johnson, genuinely believed a 90-day trial period was in Williams' contract. It appeared in SMH's version. It was not in the version sent to Williams. Ms Johnson acknowledged that she had a lot on her mind with different laptops and her own work, and it may have been an administrative error that the clause was not included. Williams' downloaded copies, reviewed during the investigation, confirmed the clause was missing. Under New Zealand employment law, a trial period that is not properly documented in the employee's agreement simply does not exist.
The Authority was direct on this, citing established case law: "It is not too onerous an expectation that employers will get the correct paperwork and do things in a correct...
Manny Pacquiao has launched a new legal counterattack in Los Angeles Superior Court, filing a malicious-prosecution lawsuit that targets the waiter who sued him nearly ten years ago and the law fi...