$2,400 for Hurt and Suffering

[Indiana_Jones]

What a cunt.

-Indy

[Phurrball]

Are you being autobiographical with that enlightened, and contextually obvious statement Indy?

[Finn]

The Employment Relations Authority has just provided the perfect example of why Wayne Mapp's Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill should be passed.

Imagine this - you are a small employer, and you hire a new plasterer. Within a few weeks he tries to steal from you, by using a company fuel card on his personal car, at 12.30 am after a night out drinking (I wonder how he was driving!). You do the proper thing and give him a warning.

Then while out on a job he and a colleague scrawl obscene words and swastikas on the windows and framings. The owners are rightly offended (especially as one had a parent who was a Holocaust survivor). Now even at this stage you don't sack the employee outright, nut do the right thing and give him another warning.

Finally the new employee just simply is not turning up to work on time, so you dismiss him.

What happens? The ERA gives the employee $2,400 for "hurt and humiliation", to be paid by the employer.

As I have said many times, it is near impossible for a small or medium sized employer to legally sack even the worse of employees. The ERA puts huge reliance on minor procedural flaws over the substance of whether the dismissal was justified.

Under Wayne Mapp's bill, that employee who turns up late, tries to steal from the employer and graffitis a client's home would not be getting $2,400 for "hurt and humiliation" as the employer could just within the three month period have let him go.

[Squeak the Rat]

Took me one year to sack some one in a professional role who made up answers when he didn't know. This cost the company tens of thousands of dollars as this guy was supposed to be a specialist. Happened often, including once he made an unauthorised purchase of some software ($25,000) that we couldn't use. During performance session he would have excuses for africa. The dip shit then did something really negligent so we gave him a final warning / dismissal. And guess what, he filed a personal grievance.

Forget small businesses, this was in a big business.

I'm not up to speed with Wayne Mapps bill, but I'd like to think there would need to be at least some justification in the 3 month see-ya-later? Otherwise it could be a good way of getting some good temp resource.......

[Lou Girardin]

I'm not up to speed with Wayne Mapps bill, but I'd like to think there would need to be at least some justification in the 3 month see-ya-later? Otherwise it could be a good way of getting some good temp resource.......

That's the argument against it. But Mapp says we should trust employers not to do this.
And then he can piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[Indiana_Jones]

Are you being autobiographical with that enlightened, and contextually obvious statement Indy?

Why yes I have, Thank you!

-Indy

[Phurrball]

(Snip) But Mapp says we should trust employers not to do this.(Snip)

A Tui ad if ever I saw one.

Like I said in my earlier post, I have sympathy with the employer, as the ex-employee in question is clearly pond-scum...but due process is there for a reason - people can be instantly dismissed for serious misconduct. You don't need to be a legal drafting wizard to include clauses in the contract that define cases of serious misconduct...like, erm, using the company fuelcard for personal use??!! If the facts fit, you were warned in the contract, so you're a goneburger.

Besides, if someone is really that bad, a background check should show them up even if they lie in their CV. That, and if I recall correctly, there is already provision for probationary contracts in existing legislation (has been a while since I looked at the ERA - happy for a steer on this one as I'm writing an opinion on quite a different area of law ATM, so I shouldn't even be on KB )

No one, not employer or employee, should be allowed to terminate an employment relationship without following due process. Mapp's bill is a bad, bad idea IMHO as it would allow just this. Employment termination 'cause you made coffee for the boss with one sugar instead of 2? Could be a reality...along with dismissal for any other non-reason.

My $0.02.

[Ixion]

Or - "Sacked- I don't have to give a reason". But if I did admit the real reason, it'd be that you're a cute young chick and you wouldn't sleep with me. So I'll send you on your way and hire another cute young thing. Sooner or later I'll get one that'll do what i want.

[Lou Girardin]

There was an interview with John Haig QC and some guy from an Employment Advisory service. Haig was the voice of reason and made some good points about the current situation.
The other guy was an Employers cheerleader, it seems they can do, and have never done, anuthing wrong.
This was a good argument to keep the law as it is.

[JimO]

yes thats right as a employer i wouldnt employ anyone who did the things that twat did the reason that he is being paid out is because the employer didnt fire him properly .... good reason for not employing him ever

[JimO]

i have noticed a bit of anti employer threads on here, so if you dont like being employed or employers become your own boss.. pedal your own bike.. its not all beer and skittles you know

[WINJA]

i have noticed a bit of anti employer threads on here, so if you dont like being employed or employers become your own boss.. pedal your own bike.. its not all beer and skittles you know

WHAT A FUCKED UP THING TO SAY YOU KNOW 90% OF US HAVE TO WORK FOR SOMEONE ELSE, YOU SOUND LIKE THE TYPICAL EMPLOYER THAT HARDENS MOST EMPLOYEES ATTITUDES, EMPLOYERS ARE USUALLY SELFISH ITS JUST THE WAY IT IS THEY DONT SEE US AS PEOPLE OFTEN THEY SEE US AS CATTLE AND CALL US SHIT LIKE LABOUR UNITS. AND I LOVE THAT FUNNY EMPLOYER TYPE MATHS LIKE WHEN YOU WORK A 9 HOUR DAY EVRY DAY BUT YOUR SICK PAY IS CALCULATED ON A 8 HOUR DAY WE ALL KNOW EMPLOYERS EMPLOY WAGE CLERKS TO MAKE SURE THEY PAY US AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE , YEAH FUCK YOU CUNTS I THINK ITS GREAT WHEN EMPLOYEES RIP YOU FUCKERS OFF AND GET THEIR OWN BACK

[Winston001]

A few points:

The problem with current employment law is that in the 1990's the Employment Court worked out a set of "fair procedures" for discipline and dismissal. This was a judical reaction to balance the pro-employer Employment Contracts Act 1991.

That was replaced by the Employment Relations Act 2000 which is much more employee-friendly.

However the "fair procedures" have never been changed to rebalance the equation. The emphasis in Court continues to be on the process used by the employer, not the actions of the employee. This approach means that the employer is guilty until they can prove otherwise.Thus we end up with extraordinary decisions such as this plasterer jerk.

I agree with Wayne Mapp's "no-cause" 3 month trial employment period. The ERA does currently provide for a probationary period of employment but strange as it must seem, you've got to come up with really compelling reasons to end the employment. In other words, in practise there is no such thing as probationary employment.

[idb]

what a fucked up thing to say you know 90% of us have to work for someone else, you sound like the typical employer that hardens most employees attitudes, employers are usually selfish its just the way it is they dont see us as people often they see us as cattle and call us shit like labour units. and i love that funny employer type maths like when you work a 9 hour day evry day but your sick pay is calculated on a 8 hour day we all know employers employ wage clerks to make sure they pay us as little as possible , yeah fuck you cunts i think its great when employees rip you fuckers off and get their own back

you sound like a typical lazy-arsed tosser who thinks the world owes him a living and resents anyone who might have a bit of extra drive or guts getting anything extra for their efforts.

[Phurrball]

I agree with Wayne Mapp's "no-cause" 3 month trial employment period. The ERA does currently provide for a probationary period of employment but strange as it must seem, you've got to come up with really compelling reasons to end the employment. In other words, in practise there is no such thing as probationary employment.

Some good points Winston. I'm pretty uneasy about any trial employment period that gives allows no employment law remedy for either party in the case of unfair dealing. (I'm know there are other legal remedies...but they are a much longer bow to draw for either party)

Both employers and employees need to be aware of their rights, and enter a contractual employnment relationship with their eyes open. Mapp's bill kinda counts on all parties dealing fairly, and in good faith, and while that's nice, it's not realistic, and people on both sides of the fence will get stung IMHO

(I'd better read that bill now eh?)