90 Day Trials
90-Day Trial Periods on Farm: Useful Tool or Costly Mistake?
When you're hiring on farm, a 90-day trial period can be a valuable way to assess whether a new employee is the right fit for the role, the team, and the farm culture.
After all, a CV and interview only tell you so much. Farming is practical, fast-paced, and heavily reliant on attitude, communication, work ethic, and reliability. Sometimes it takes seeing someone in the role to know whether it's going to work.
But here's the catch: 90-day trial periods are often implemented incorrectly, leaving employers exposed when things don't go to plan. What may seem like a small administrative oversight at the beginning of an employment relationship can quickly become a significant (and costly) issue if concerns arise later.
When employment issues escalate, the Employment Relations Authority will closely examine whether the correct process was followed from the outset. This includes how the employment agreement was presented, whether the employee had the opportunity to seek independent advice, when the agreement was signed, and how any subsequent concerns were managed. A well-intentioned employer can easily find themselves in hot water with the ERA if these requirements haven't been met properly.
What Recent ERA Cases Are Telling Employers
The ERA continues to take a firm view when employers fail to follow the correct process or don't meet their obligations in good faith. The rules don't change because it's calving, mating, or because the farm is short-staffed.
The reality is that employment legislation applies equally to all businesses across New Zealand. Whether you're running a dairy farm, a construction company, or an office-based business, the same legal obligations and employment standards apply.
Some Recent Rulings By The ERA Include:
Philip Stewart v Rooney Farms Limited [2025] NZERA 761 -Aggressive management behaviour and a forced exit resulted in the employer being ordered to pay $36,500.
Jennifer Jacobsen v Cube Innovations Ltd -An invalid 90-day dismissal and failure to provide the correct notice period resulted in compensation of $15,000.
Wilkins v DD Group Holdings Limited [2025] NZERA 536 -A trial period was found to be invalid because the employee had undertaken paid orientation and training before their official start date. The employer was ordered to pay $9,900.
Cuc v Huynh [2025] NZERA 68 -The ERA found there was insufficient evidence to support concerns about performance, resulting in remedies of more than $31,000.
The Bottom Line
90-day trial periods can absolutely be a useful risk-management tool for farming businesses.
However, they only provide protection when they're set up correctly andsupported by good employment practices.
Most employers don't intentionally get this wrong. More often than not, farms are busy, operational demands take priority, and admin gets pushed down the list.
Unfortunately, employment law doesn't make allowances for how busy the season is.
That's where we can help.
The Sharefarming Consultants help farming businesses get their employment documentation right from the start, from employment agreements and trial periods through to onboarding, compliance, performance management, and people processes.
Emma Steiner
HR Consultant
