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 sequence."
The safety concerns that prompted the dismissal were, in themselves, genuine. Williams had driven the truck briefly with an experienced contractor in the passenger seat, who told management he refused to get back in the truck with her and issued an ultimatum of "her or me." Johnson also reviewed in-cab video footage, which deepened her concerns. In her termination email, she wrote that "concerns were raised which led me to review in-cab video footage, this has now raised additional safety concerns for me."
The ERA accepted that a small company running trucks around the clock could not viably carry a driver who needed months of supervised training. The substantive decision to dismiss Williams was found to be justified. But SMH never gave Williams an opportunity to respond to those concerns before the termination email was sent. No meeting, no conversation, just an email. That procedural failure was enough to render the dismissal unjustified.
There was a complicating factor. Williams' resume had reflected more experience than she actually had. She obtained her Class 5 licence only on June 13, 2024, just months before starting the role, and had not made the extent of her inexperience clear to SMH. The ERA found this contributed directly to the circumstances that led to her dismissal and reduced her remedies by 20 per cent.
The final orders required SMH to pay $4,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, $2,462.40 in lost wages, and $384.75 in wage arrears for work completed prior to and on her first day of employment.
The case crystallises a few non-negotiables for anyone overseeing employment agreements and termination processes. Verifying that the correct version of an employment agreement has actually reached the employee is a basic but critical step, not something to leave to chance or a busy inbox. Even where dismissal is substantively warranted, as it was here, failing to give the employee any opportunity to respond before the decision is made will expose the organisation. Trial period clauses, in particular, demand precision: they must appear in the right document, and that document must be the one the employee receives and signs.
