In the know: 90 Day Trial Periods
This is my first column, offering some advice and commentary about employment law, for small to medium-sized Canterbury employers.
The recent Employment Relations Authority decision involving Olivia Farrelly and Advance Office Products highlights the need for good employment law advice.
Olivia was interviewed twice, then offered a job to provide customer support, mostly by phone. Two weeks later, Advance became concerned with her phone manner, and felt that they might be losing business because of it.
They said they had not known, when employing Olivia that she had a noticeable stutter, and believed she should have told them about it because she knew there was a lot of telephone work in the role.
Olivia said she’d stuttered all her life but it was only an issue on telephone calls (and not general conversations).
Advance dismissed Olivia after meeting with her, relying on the 90 day trial period. Olivia challenged her dismissal, arguing the only reason she was fired was for a medical condition (her stutter), and that was unlawful discrimination.
The Authority agreed, awarding her almost $22,000 in compensation and lost wages.
What went wrong? This decision shows there are limited grounds to challenge a dismissal under the 90 day trial period, and there is no way an employer can know them all.
A short phone call to a good employment lawyer would have immediately rung alarm bells, and would have been a lot cheaper than $22 grand.
Feel free to call me for no-obligation advice, if you have an employment issue.
