ERA finds company failed consultation requirements despite believing in valid provision
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found that an operations manager was unjustifiably dismissed when his employer relied on a trial period provision that exceeded the 90-day statutory limit and failed to meet legal requirements for valid trial periods.
The manager claimed he was dismissed outside the trial period timeframe and that the provision was invalid, while also seeking payment for work performed before his official start date.
The company argued the trial period was valid, and the manager was dismissed within the allowable timeframe after performance concerns arose.
The operations manager was recruited in June 2023 for a newly-created General Manager Operations role at an aggregates company.
After negotiations on salary and restraint of trade terms, the parties agreed on a start date of 19 July 2023, with the manager requesting this timing to handle personal affairs before assisting with a tender due on 21 July.
The employment agreement contained a trial period clause stating the employee would be employed "on a trial basis for the first 3 months" with either party able to terminate on one week's notice.
The provision included detailed requirements for the employer to raise concerns, give the employee an opportunity to respond, conduct monthly performance reviews, and discuss steps to assist the employee in meeting...
Welcome to Reality Check, NewsGuard’s newsletter that tracks the false claims and conspiracy theories that shape our world — and who’s behind them. Support us by becoming a premium member or sharin...