Employer tries to fire worker under 90-day trial, fails

Saturday, 10 February 2018

The worker was fired over the phone and told she wasn't a 'good fit'.

A company that tried to fire a worker under the 90-day trial, and failed because her contract was signed too late, has been ordered to pay her almost $11,000.

Carolyn Lang worked as a customer service representative for Gourmet Foods for just under two weeks before she was fired on June 28, 2017 for not meeting deadlines.

When she was hired, Lang worked through a two-day paid trial period before she signed her contract with the 90-day trial clause.

According to the law, the 90-day trial could only be applied before a prospective employee began work. However, as Lang had already completed two days of paid work, she could not be sacked under the 90-day provision, the Employment Relations Authority said.

* Wendy's justified in sacking worker who gave son free food

* 'Dishonest' worker wins $29,000

When she signed on, there had been a mutual understanding that Lang's employment would initially be for a period of at least two months as she was covering for another worker, but it could also extend.

Gourmet Foods said that after Lang signed the employment agreement, she was late to work on two days and showed a lack of interest in learning the role.

On June 28, after work, Lang received a phone call from one of her superiors, Sharon Love, telling her she was 'not a good fit' as she had failed to meet her deadline to package all the orders in time for a South Island delivery.

But Lang said she was slower than others because she was new to the job, and was taking time to ensure everything she processed was done correctly.

Also, Gourmet Foods had not raised concerns about Lang's performance before deciding to fire her.

The ERA said Lang's dismissal was unjustified as she was not given an opportunity to respond to any concerns, and the dismissal was 'immediate and abrupt'.

Lang said the dismissal hurt her relationship with her mother, whom she lived with at the time, as she could not afford to contribute to her parents' mortgage and they had to put the house up for sale.

Her mother blamed her for the dismissal, which led to her having to find another place to live for herself and her children, Lang said.

Lang said she found it difficult to find employment and suffered anxiety and stress.

The ERA has ordered Gourmet Foods to pay Lang $10,989 - $8000 for distress, $1989 in lost wages, and $1000 in legal costs.