$2,400 for Hurt and Suffering

[mstriumph]

It says that the guy was fired for "being late"?????

Perhaps, the boss should have fired the bastard when he drew graffiti... If he had a proper contract and employer should have had a clause where they could fire him for serious misconduct such as graffiti on client's homes, trying to steal fuel, etc...

It does suck the boss has to pay up to the bastard now, but hopefully in the future, he will have more regard for such legal issues beforing firing someone, (ie, fire them for serious misconduct instead of being late)

Right

There are obviously procedures to be complied with over there, same as [used to be - pre king f#ckwit howard] here.

Employers ignore these at their peril.

You may not LIKE the system, but this is an indication that it is working as it should be.

..... and yes - the ex-employee is a first-degree wanker - 'nuff said

[Sniper]

I quite like Howards terms on Employee and Employer firing and Hiring

[Lou Girardin]

That was an interesting article, it was linked to the Nat's having a go about the 'grievance industry'. But the figures show that only 58% of cases against employers succeed. They're not odds I'd risk several thousand dollars in legal fees on.
This was a particularly stupid decision, but if employers followed the rules it wouldn't happen. What's wrong with a verbal warning followed by a written warning, followed by the sack?
Or should we return to the 19th century, 14 hour days at your masters pleasure?

[**R1**]

Notice that hardly any of the "1,000 new cops" are getting sent down here - something to do with the crime rate falling in the far south...

realy?? and I thought it was coz my bike was off the road

[Squeak the Rat]

But the figures show that only 58% of cases against employers succeed.

58% sounds like a fair number really. In a very loose kind of logic way it implies there isn't a complete bias one way or the other.

I don't really have a problem with following the process. But cash for hurt and suffering? We're slowly getting to be like the states where you can sue someone for emotional distress because they yelled at you.


PS - are the nolans with the sun visor any noiser when it's raised?

[Lou Girardin]

PS - are the nolans with the sun visor any noiser when it's raised?

I haven't noticed a difference up to 140 odd.

[Phurrball]

Like Lou implied above.

There are procedures to follow, and the employment forums concerned don't seem to be falling over themselves to find in favour of employees based on statistics.

Sure, I agree that the case mentioned in the 'harold' is one of a total looser, but it is just that...one case. ONe case does not a biased system make. More fool the employer for not getting rid of the guy properly; you've gotta dot the 'i's and cross the 't's - hell - you can even get employment advice for free from a community law centre if you don't wanna pay a lawyer. ANy student volunteer worth their salt could've told the 'boss' concerned how to dismiss the looser mentioned without a nasty comback.

The system should, IMHO, have a slight natural bias towards employees, due to the imbalane in bargaining power usually inherent in employee/employer bargaining. (Just like the residential tenancies act recognises a similar imbalancce in bargaining power). The 'harold' article was not a stunning piece of journalism, and was hardly balanced. But what do you expect when most of NZ's papers are owned by big business interests?

I know my views ain't gonna be popular, but tough. You may not like the system, but you've gotta work within it if you want results.

(Yes, I know I'm a 'hippy' finn!)

[scumdog]

realy?? and I thought it was coz my bike was off the road

I said CRIME, not pissuant bike stunting and general dicking around

[WINJA]

looks like theres only one side of the story presented, the employment court arent that stupid , sometimes when 2 sides are presented in a court it maybe a clearer picture than whats pesented here, most employers are scum in my opinion and get the punishment they deserve

[texmo]

I agree with winja there is alwase 2 sides to the story....

[Skyryder]

I agree with winja there is alwase 2 sides to the story....

I live in a complicated world. There's my side of the story that makes three.

Skyryder

[JimO]

two sides maby but the guy desirved the push for both the incidents and he will have a massive black mark against him now. I am in the same industry and i wouldnt employ the tosser

[WINJA]

two sides maby but the guy desirved the push for both the incidents and he will have a massive black mark against him now. I am in the same industry and i wouldnt employ the tosser

BUT YOUVE ONLY GOT ONE SIDE OF THE STORY, HE MIGHT SAY HES INNOCENT AND PRODUCE A COP AND A JP AS A WITNESS , BUT YOUVE ALREADY SAID YOU WONT EMPLOY HIM AND MADE A JUDGEMENT,YOUR THE KIND OF EMPOYER WE NEED PROTETION FROM

[Ixion]

The Harold article was rather unbalanced. The "grafitti" and stuff was, if I understand correctly, on the unclad framing/inner surfaces of the walls. This has been a tradition for at least 100 years. I have worked on old (C19) houses, and found all sorts of comments/drawing/graffiti in the wall cavities once the matchboard (gibboard nowdays) is removed. Of course , once the wall is gibbed the graffiti is hidden for all time (or many many years anyway).

It is not at all easy to secure a victory on the employment court , you have to do your homework, and the employer must have genuinely stuffed up.

The process is very simple, really. A jolly sight simpler for employers to follow than cops have to go through when giving you a ticket. If they (cops) have to follow the procedure, I don't see why employers shouldn't.

After all , here's the boss saying he wants to sack someone for not following the rules. But, wait a minute, the boss is also saying that bosses shouldn't have to follow the rules? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you reckon that workers should be sacked if they break the rules, then bosses also should have to follow the rules.

[Ixion]

two sides maby but the guy desirved the push for both the incidents and he will have a massive black mark against him now. I am in the same industry and i wouldnt employ the tosser

So you would also support me , as union delegate , calling for a black ban and load out ban on the employer , effectively putting him out of business? (I've done that once) . After all, the court said he was the guilty party.

You are saying that the people of this country should be victimised for seeking recourse under the law? So, in the same logic, if you get knocked off your bike by a cager, and you take said cager to court, and the court awards you compensation for your stuffed up bike, you should be banned from driving for life, because you have committed the "crime" of seeking redress that you were legally entitled to? Same logic. Sounds like your industry could be fertile recruiting grounds for Matt McCarten and the Unite union. I'll pass the message on next time I see him.