| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 128 |
| Hearing date | 2-Sep-15 |
| Determination date | 08 September 2015 |
| Member | James Crichton |
| Representation | P Cahill ; K Kajan |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Hill v Ardex New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by process used by respondent to dismiss applicant – 90 day trial period – Whether trial period conformed with law – Whether applicant’s claim attempt to circumvent s67A Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Trial period clause contained in employment agreement (“EA”). Applicant given EA before commencing employment, given opportunity to seek advice and signed EA. Clause conformed with legal requirements. Applicant’s claim in respect of dismissal, as if not for dismissal, applicant would not have complaints about process used for dismissal. Applicant seeking to circumvent effect of s67A ERA. In any case, respondent entitled to seek better performance from applicant if applicant failing to meet expectations, so respondent did not act unjustifiably. No disadvantage. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s67A;ERA s103(1)(b) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_128.pdf [pdf 206 KB] |