Selected cases

Employment Court of New Zealand · [2022] NZEmpC 131

Farrand Orchards Ltd v Tane

Farrand Orchards Ltd v Tane is a key New Zealand Employment Court case clarifying the rules around 90-day trial periods.

Employment Court of New Zealand27 July 2022

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Employers must ensure that any 90-day trial period is clearly discussed, agreed, and included in a signed employment agreement before the employee starts work.
  • Farrand Orchards Ltd v Tane is a key New Zealand Employment Court case clarifying the rules around 90-day trial periods.

Use this to check

  • A 90-day trial period must be agreed in writing and signed before employment starts.
  • Employers must highlight the trial period and explain the employee’s right to seek advice.
  • Allowing an employee to start work before signing invalidates the trial period.

Decision snapshot

  1. What happened

    • Farrand Orchards Limited (FOL) verbally offered Mr Michael Tane a job as a trainee orchard manager after a four-hour onsite interview.
    • Mr Farrand claimed he mentioned a 90-day trial period during the interview, but Mr Tane disputed this.
    • After the interview, they discussed accommodation as part of Mr Tane’s remuneration, but neither recalled discussing the trial period during this conversation.
    • FOL later emailed Mr Tane an unsigned, incomplete employment agreement containing a 90-day trial clause, but the covering email did not highlight this clause and suggested all terms were negotiable.
  2. What the court had to decide

    • The legal issue was whether Farrand Orchards Limited could rely on a 90-day trial period clause to justify dismissing Mr Tane, given that the employment agreement containing the clause was not signed before he started work and the clause was not clearly highlighted or explained.
    • The Court had to decide if the statutory requirements for a valid trial period under the Employment Relations Act 2000 were met.
  3. What the court decided

    • The Employment Court found that the 90-day trial period was invalid because it was not properly agreed and signed before Mr Tane started work.
    • The employer failed to highlight the trial period and did not explain the employee’s right to seek advice.
    • The Court dismissed FOL’s challenge, upheld the Authority’s finding of unjustified dismissal, and confirmed the remedies and costs orders against FOL.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Employers must ensure that any 90-day trial period is clearly discussed, agreed, and included in a signed employment agreement before the employee starts work.
  • Simply sending a contract after a verbal offer or allowing work to begin before the agreement is signed can invalidate the trial period.
  • Employers should also explain the employee’s right to seek advice about the agreement.
  • Failing to follow these steps risks unjustified dismissal claims and financial penalties.

Useful next steps

  • A 90-day trial period must be agreed in writing and signed before employment starts.
  • Employers must highlight the trial period and explain the employee’s right to seek advice.
  • Allowing an employee to start work before signing invalidates the trial period.
  • Dismissal under an invalid trial period can lead to unjustified dismissal claims.
  • Proper documentation and clear communication are essential for compliance.

The story

Farrand Orchards Limited verbally offered Mr Tane a job after a lengthy interview. The employer claimed the 90-day trial period was discussed, but Mr Tane disagreed. Later, they discussed accommodation as part of the job, but again, the trial period was not mentioned.

A written employment agreement was emailed to Mr Tane, containing a trial period clause, but it was incomplete and unsigned. The covering email suggested all terms were negotiable and did not highlight the trial period. Mr Tane replied, planning his move and indicating he would review the contract. He started work before signing the agreement.

After some time, FOL dismissed Mr Tane under the trial period clause. Mr Tane challenged the dismissal, arguing the trial period was invalid because it was not properly agreed before he started work. The Employment Relations Authority sided with Mr Tane, and FOL appealed to the Employment Court, focusing on whether the trial period was valid.

Key takeaways

  • A 90-day trial period must be agreed in writing and signed before employment starts.
  • Employers must highlight the trial period and explain the employee’s right to seek advice.
  • Allowing an employee to start work before signing invalidates the trial period.
  • Dismissal under an invalid trial period can lead to unjustified dismissal claims.
  • Proper documentation and clear communication are essential for compliance.

What the Court decided

The Employment Court confirmed that the 90-day trial period was invalid because it was not properly agreed and signed before Mr Tane started work.

The Court found that the employer did not highlight the trial period or explain the employee’s right to seek advice. The covering email suggested all terms were negotiable, which further undermined the employer’s claim that the trial period was agreed.

As a result, the Court upheld the Authority’s finding of unjustified dismissal. The remedies and costs ordered by the Authority remained in place, and FOL was required to address outstanding payments promptly.

How to read this for your business

If you are hiring staff and want to use a 90-day trial period, you must ensure the clause is included in a written employment agreement, and that the agreement is signed before the employee starts work.

Do not rely on verbal discussions or send agreements after the employee has begun working. Always highlight the trial period and explain the employee’s right to seek advice about the agreement.

This case shows that failing to follow these steps can lead to personal grievance claims, financial penalties, and compliance orders. It is not enough to assume the employee understands the trial period or to rely on past practices. Clear communication and proper documentation are essential.

Operating checklist

To avoid disputes and ensure compliance, follow these practical steps when hiring employees under a trial period:

Common questions

Can an employer rely on a 90-day trial period if the employee starts work before signing the agreement?

No. The trial period must be agreed in writing and signed before the employee starts work. If work begins first, the trial period is invalid.

Does the employer need to explain the trial period to the employee?

Yes. The employer should clearly highlight the trial period and explain the employee’s right to seek advice before signing.

What happens if a trial period is invalid?

If the trial period is invalid, the employer cannot rely on it to justify dismissal. The employee may raise a personal grievance and seek remedies.

Are all terms in an employment agreement negotiable?

While many terms can be negotiated, statutory requirements like the trial period must be properly agreed and explained before employment starts.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help