Sorry mate.

[Biff]

I spent yesterday evening with a group of work colleagues, having an informal chat (read piss up) about work things. During the evening a colleage asked me what I thought of one of her staff*. I told her exactly what I thought of his work, fluffed up with the occassional, "but he's a nice guy".

Just checked my mail - there's a message from her, in the mail she says, " Thanks for your honesty (about *) , you confirmed my own beliefs. I'm going to let him go tomorrow."

Sorry mate. Sorry to your wife and 5 kids, sorry that this will mean the termination of your NZ work to residence visa and you'll all have to return to the UK.

Sorry.

[Gremlin]

jeepers, bit underhanded to do that using stuff from an informal chat...

Can she easily let him go like that?? I was under the impression it was bloody hard to fire people without following process etc. with the Labour govt...

[SPORK]

Sheet. Bugger man.

I mean, forcing someone to go back to the UK... Ouch.

[justsomeguy]

Can she easily let him go like that?? I was under the impression it was bloody hard to fire people without following process etc. with the Labour govt...

Law and Justice are two very different words in the real world Gremlin.

Horrible situation. No idea how to remedy it.

[Gremlin]

Law and Justice are two very different words in the real world Gremlin.

I'm sure, but my dad is a manager, and he's been through bad employees before, HR was involved etc. What a shit fight, employee ended up claiming against the company...

Just surprised it was easy.

[Biff]

I mean, forcing someone to go back to the UK... Ouch.

You think that's bad. It was only a few hundred years ago that people were forced to leave the UK for Oz.....


In all honesty, she can't force him to go back just by sacking him. But to terminate his contract, on which his visa is based, means that he'll be staying here illegaly I guess (I have the same kind of visa). Unless he applies to stay on some other grounds.

Not nice. And yes she can do it, legally, apparently, providing that she makes a good case for him not being suitable for the job in which he is employed.

[justsomeguy]

I'm sure, but my dad is a manager, and he's been through bad employees before, HR was involved etc. What a shit fight, employee ended up claiming against the company...

Just surprised it was easy.

Really?? I was "made redundant" with about 1 minutes notice, bastards changed the company name and location and took off with bout 3K of my earnings. They also had their phones dissconnected and furniture seized by landlords......

Never went bankrupt - just decided to stop investing and paying people. Did the same to the other staff too.

[SPORK]

Well, was he worthwhile to the company?

If he was a dead weight then you could argue that you/she did the right thing.

I wouldn't though.

[Gremlin]

Really?? I was "made redundant" with about 1 minutes notice, bastards changed the company name and location and took off with bout 3K of my earnings. They also had their phones dissconnected and furniture seized by landlords......

Never went bankrupt - just decided to stop investing and paying people. Did the same to the other staff too.

jeez... but then that's the actual company that's at fault. In that instance, yep, definitely a difference between law and reality...

but my dad is the manager of a residential housing company whose name goes back 20+ years, and is part of one of the big housing companies in Auckland... so you can't act illegally.

I hate companies that pack up and change names just to screw people, and legally you can't do a damn thing.

[Ixion]

You think that's bad. It was only a few hundred years ago that people were forced to leave the UK for Oz.....


In all honesty, she can't force him to go back just by sacking him. But to terminate his contract, on which his visa is based, means that he'll be staying here illegaly I guess (I have the same kind of visa). Unless he applies to stay on some other grounds.

Not nice. And yes she can do it, legally, apparently, providing that she makes a good case for him not being suitable for the job in which he is employed.

Oh dear. Not pleasant for anyone concerned.

Unless "she" is very good and has a LOT of supporting documentation (including previous warnings and counselling), I'd be pretty confident (putting on my old union delegate hat - and I was a good 'un) that I'd get him quite a few thousand for unjustified dismissal. In practice, the company would buy him out to avoid the court case.

He has not only to be "unsuitable" (meaningless term actually, the only reason for performance based dismissal is incompetance, which must be objectively demonstrated , with documented examples, and evidence of prior warning, and performance coaching provided) , but the company has to prove (a) that he misled the employer as to his qualifications/suitability and (b) that it is not reasonably practical for the company to provide training and/or counselling and/or other assistance so as to render him "suitable" .

Doesn't really help all that much though.

[Gremlin]

There's the kind of stuff I was thinking about... could never put that into words...

yep, companies don't want the hassle and will normally try to get it out of the way quick... depending on the size of the company, they might have either a law department, or big law firm on the books.

Getting them involved would just about cost more...

[justsomeguy]

There's the kind of stuff I was thinking about... could never put that into words...

yep, companies don't want the hassle and will normally try to get it out of the way quick... depending on the size of the company, they might have either a law department, or big law firm on the books.

Getting them involved would just about cost more...

I think the head of whatever dept is involved and the accountant will put together a small "bribe" that the company secretary/PR person will offer the poor fella.

His biggest prob will be having his work permit cancelled. Any way around that?

[Gremlin]

His biggest prob will be having his work permit cancelled. Any way around that?

yeah, that's the worst bit.

Only way I could see is if he gets an offer from another company. The problem is that a company has to prove it has looked here first, there aren't other suitable people for the job, the job is on that skills shortages list etc.

IIRC

[Ixion]

There's the kind of stuff I was thinking about... could never put that into words...

yep, companies don't want the hassle and will normally try to get it out of the way quick... depending on the size of the company, they might have either a law department, or big law firm on the books.

Getting them involved would just about cost more...

Yep. And if they do it's not too hard to imply that shows vindictiveness, and impute that into the original decision.

Incidentally, nothing to do with Labour government, situation was just the same under earlier governments. Was actually more so prior to the ECA. Only thing that's altered since Labour switched the ECA to the ERA is that the courts have shown a willingness to import the "good faith" requirement of the ERA into disputes generally, which should make it easier in cases such as this where (presumably) the axe strikes out of the blue - ie good faith would argue that talking about the employees performance in such "off the record" circumstances is not acting in good faith.

Be aware Mr Biff that if he DOES take it to court (unlikely) , "she" may use the argument that "other people thought he was no good also, not just me" to bolster her case - and in that event you may have to give evidence as to what you said, and prove it.

A good employment court lawyer (or a good union delegate - not in a union ? you should be) can make tie a knot in most dismissal cases .which is why most companies will settle . Problem is, a few thousand bucks is no substitute for a job

[Lou Girardin]

I guess the moral is to never venture an opinion on your workmates to management.
The growing practice of 360 degree reviews makes me sick. It's a cop-out that lets an indivdual's supervisor avoid justifying their decisions about staff.