A secret strike!
September 6th, 2007 at 6:44 am by David FarrarFollowing the advise of their union, a group of posties staged a secret strike in July last year. Rather than deliver the mail, as they were being paid to, they reposted some of their letters. This means that customers faced waiting twice as long or more for their mail if they were affected by the secret strike.
Now when your employees refuse to do their jobs, it is a partial strike and an employer is allowed to respond by locking them out. In this case, where the union and employees, did not even tell the employer if their action – one could argue that the employer could treat the actions as misconduct.
But NZ Post did not move to formally sanction or dismiss the employees. They merely locked them out, backdating it to the start of their secret strike.
But the Employment Relations Authority has ruled it is illegal to backdate a suspension notice. So it means the posties get full pay during all the time they were on a secret strike.
It does indeed appear to be a loophole in the law. My view is that employees only get the protection of the law for striking, when they actually notify their employer they are striking. Any sort of “secret strike” is simply misconduct.
Imagine if you discover your helpdesk staff were hanging up on every fifth call as part of a “secret strike”? Or if your accounts receivable team decided not to invoice evey fifth customer without telling you. Totally unacceptable.
Related posts:
- Who voted against secret strike ballots?
- Were they secret ballots or not?
- Employer going way too far
- Striking because they’re paid too much
September 6th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Wouldn’t that mean that the posties would have twice as much work to do a couple of days later (i.e. two days’ post rather than one)? Sounds self-defeating.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 7:29 am
“Any sort of “secret strike” is simply misconduct.”
Bang on, the reason people strike is to influence their employer, if you’re not telling your employer, infact trying to keep the action secret you’re goal can’t be to improve pay or conditions, a written warning should be the appropriate response.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 7:34 am
“merely locked them out” Huh? “merely?” What sort of new right nirvana do you live in farrar?
[DPF: That's a lot better than sacking them for serious misconduct]
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Nice one posties. Similar to when British airways banned its cabin crew from striking a few years ago.
Funnily enough on the day the action was planned every single member of staff happened to phone in sick.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 8:48 am
My view is that employees only get the protection of the law for striking, when they actually notify their employer they are striking
David, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve heard you call yourself a libertarian before, so wouldn’t your view be that employers should be allowed to give their workers the sack for taking any strike action, whether notified or not?
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Heh!
Nice One.
I got an idea why don’t the bosses have a ‘secret strike’ and decide not to pay their staff for a few weeks but not putting thier pay into their bank accounts.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 9:11 am
So when Xtra’s “helpdesk” keep you waiting for an hours or so, as they have done recently, staff may well be having a “secret strike.”
Vote:How the hell are people supposed to know.
I thought Xtra were just damned incompetent and that Telecom had nothing but contempt for its customers by offering such a poor service.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:23 am
I got an idea why don’t the bosses have a ’secret strike’ and decide not to pay their staff for a few weeks but not putting thier pay into their bank accounts.
Because that would be a lockout, which, like a strike, can only legally take place during the renewal of a collective agreement.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Section 87 (the ‘loophole’ Wilkinson was complaining about) also in the ECA?
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 9:37 am
So employee-initiated sabotage of a business operation now has the protection of the Employment Relations Authority?!?
No wonder our country is slipping further and further back down the OECD rankings. Might also contribute to the shift of NZ jobs offshore.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 9:45 am
“the shift of NZ jobs offshore.”
What an intersting idea, tell us all how posties jobs could be shifted overseas Krazy Kiwi?
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Has any one read the decision? On the face of it, it appears ridiculous but I am wondering if the decision was that this wasn’t a strike? If it wasn’t a strike then there couldn’t be a lock out and, as noted, it becomes a straight misconduct issue.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Tane – you seem to know nothing at all about what I believe. I have never advocated striking workers should be able to be fired. I have in fact helped many people join a union, organised collective action at a workplace, given free expert advise to a major NZ union, worked with CTU against the Bolger/Peters compulsory super proposal, invited Ken Douglas to National Party Conferences and assisted several people with personal grievances.
You really seem to have a blinkered view of anyone who disagrees with you.
As someone with libertarian tendencies I have no problems with people choosing to self organise into a union. I just rail against it being compulsory and against the taxpayer bribing public servants to join the PSA.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Isn’t the whole purpose of a strike to let the employer know how dissatisfied you are? And doesn’t making it “secret” rather defeat the purpose?
Oh and I’m pretty sure krazykiwi was thinking slightly more widely than just posties. After all, what is good for one is good for everyone.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 9:57 am
So employee-initiated sabotage of a business operation now has the protection of the Employment Relations Authority?!?
KK, Section 87 has remained relatively unchanged since (if I recall correctly) the days of the Labour Relations Act, so it’s nothing new.
I’d also point out that what the posties did in this case was pretty out of the ordinary. I’ve never heard of anything else like this, probably because it’s entirely self-defeating to take strike action without telling your employer. Kind of odd behaviour, really.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Totally unacceptable.
Absolutely.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Crush the workers! Ban the unions! None of this rubbish would have happened if Don Brash was Prime Minister! Boy we missed a golden opportunity there to lose some of our civil rights…
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Employers should by now realize that thy have no rights and if the staff feel aggrieved about their pay they should go on strike silent or loud.
So logic would say that if employees of the taxman who are paying the states way feel that they are not getting a fair deal for their taxes and want a cut then taxpayers should be able to go on a silent strike an not pay their paye and taxes.
Great Idea eh !!
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Employers should by now realize that thy have no rights and if the staff feel aggrieved about their pay they should go on strike silent or loud.
Calculus, what on earth are you on about? Are you saying employers should go on strike if their staff want a pay rise? That’s called a lockout, and they already have the right to do it, just as staff are allowed to strike.
As for your second par, I can’t for the life of me figure out what you’re trying to say.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
sonic you can do better than that. c’mon man. lift your game.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Actually the law as it stands is very restrictive of strikes – i.e. if an employer illegally sacks a union delegate you can’t strike over it – if an employer bullies/intimidates/harasses workers (very common) you can’t legally strike over it. If and employer isn’t fulfilling the terms of a collective agreement you can’t legally strike. You can’t strike in support of another work place, even if it’s owned by the same company, you can’t strike for political reasons (i.e. if the government is trying to bring in anti-worker legislation). in fact the only time striking is allowed is when bargaining for an agreement, and even then you have to give them something like 30 days notice – the legislation is ridiculously pro-employer when you consider that it was written by a so-called ‘worker’s government’.
[DPF: For (1) the delegate can take a personal grievance. For (2) the union or workers can take a personal grievance. For (3) one can ask for the Court to direct if an employer is in breach. In all these cases it is far better for a neutral expert to decide if there has been a breach rather than an interested party. If employees wish to protest against a democratically elected Government they can do so in their own time. I think it is rich to expect the employer to be held responsible for what a Government does. There is a more arguable case in terms of multi site strikes]
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
“Tane – you seem to know nothing at all about what I believe. I have never advocated striking workers should be able to be fired. I have in fact helped many people join a union, organised collective action at a workplace, given free expert advise to a major NZ union,”
But doesn’t collective bargaining distort the market DPF? How can you have your libertarian, market fundamentalist utopia when you support such heretical practices? Me and my fellow men of the cloth, my rogernomes, are very dissapointed in you David
[DPF: In most jobs individual agreements are preferable. I'd hate to be in a job where I can't get rewarded for how well I perform. But in certain industries a collective agreement makes sense - for example supermarket checkout operators arguably. You don't understand classial liberalism (the idenitity label I prefer) is you think I would think it should be dictated how employees organise. Likewise though employers have a choice as to what they agree to]
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
The only problem with the personal grievance route is that it’s often takes several weeks to sort out, and by the end of it the worker/delegate doesn’t want to come back to the work place because of the ill feeling – which makes it very hard to sustain a union presence. Collective action is far more empowering and is a much more effective disincentive for naughty employers who choose to use dirty tricks/union busting tactics.
” If employees wish to protest against a democratically elected Government they can do so in their own time.”
yes but they should be able to choose what is “their own time” in these instances – no person/employer owns any one else’s body – workers aren’t chattel for employers.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“In most jobs individual agreements are preferable. I’d hate to be in a job where I can’t get rewarded for how well I perform.”
But that’s where you’re mistaken David – the minimum standards/wages provided by awards systems allow for productivity based incentive schemes. They’re much more flexible than the new right/neoliberals/market fundies have made them out to be.
“classial liberalism”
phew – that’s a sexy euphemism David! Brings to mind images of Britney Spears masquerading as Elizabeth Taylor or something
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I’d hate to be in a job where I can’t get rewarded for how well I perform.
David, you should know that collective agreements set minimum, not maximum standards. Many collectives will have provisions for skill-based or performance-based pay, and employers can also offer pay incentives to individual staff who are performing well. The collective sets a floor, not a ceiling.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
True, but it’s a concrete floor with a legislatively jammed trapdoor which protects poor performers.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
“yes but they should be able to choose what is “their own time” in these instances – no person/employer owns any one else’s body – workers aren’t chattel for employers.”
They can with the appropriate notice, its called Annual Leave.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
True, but it’s a concrete floor with a legislatively jammed trapdoor which protects poor performers.
How? There is nothing in collective agreements that stops employers from sacking workers who don’t live up to the job’s requirements. It happens all the time. It’s getting tiring debating with people who just haven’t done their research.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“They can with the appropriate notice, its called Annual Leave.”
What if 50% of the work place are union, and they all want to strike/protest over a political issue? Also, it takes time to organise for taking annual leave, what if the strike/protest requires rapid organisation? I think we just have a different conception of human rights Bevan – I believe workers should be free to exercise autonomy over their own bodies, whereas you think that worker’s bodies should be the property of their employers.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
And, of course, employers can refuse annual leave at their discretion.
[Only to some degree. they can't force it all to be taken in say two day chunks. But they can force it to be taken over a period where say they wish to close the office in January.]
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
While I sympathise with those affected by the late delivery of their mail, I’d suggest ancouraging an outbreak of “secret striking” across many other organisations.
The tax man could stop gouging us for every third or fourth dollar we earn and take, say, every fifth or sixth instead. The Police could set their speed traps to catch only those vehicles genuinely driving too fast for the road and the conditions rather than pinging every second driver to add to the government’s piggy bank. Council parking wardens could actually allow people a reasonable grace period to return to their vehicle if they’re delayed at a meeting or held up at the doctor’s rather than standing next to an almost-expired meter positively quivering with excitement at the thought of being able to impose yet another financial burden on some hard-working schmuck…
Secret strikes across the entire public sector, I say!!
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
What if 50% of the work place are union, and they all want to strike/protest over a political issue? Also, it takes time to organise for taking annual leave, what if the strike/protest requires rapid organisation?
What if an employer would like his staff to do their jobs? Why should the employer have to take the financial hit because some union got their knickers in a twist about something that has nothing to do with the employer? And if you still think they should be allowed to astrike, then who re-imburses the employer? But then again there is nothing stopping them protesting during the weekend.
I think we just have a different conception of human rights Bevan – I believe workers should be free to exercise autonomy over their own bodies, whereas you think that worker’s bodies should be the property of their employers.
My god, you are laughable! Now you are telling me how I think….
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Tane have you ever been an employer? Your own business built up from scratch? Employed 60+ people? Been listed in the top places to work in NZ? I have. Never again in NZ.
Your suggestion that there is nothing that stops employers from sacking workers might have a nice balanced sound to it, but it appears devoid of real-life experience.
A dismissal requires almost treasonable actions these days (regardless of what may exist in an employment agreement), and even then one can expect a PG on the way out with huge costs fighting this in the Employment Court but eventually having to pay out.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“What if an employer would like his staff to do their jobs? Why should the employer have to take the financial hit because some union got their knickers in a twist about something that has nothing to do with the employer? And if you still think they should be allowed to astrike, then who re-imburses the employer?”
It would be just another risk of doing business Bevan. And not a particularly huge one.
The UN’s International Labour Organisation sees it as fundamental human right. And so do I. Human beings should to be able to withdraw their bodies and labour in order to exercise their democratic right to protest, regardless of whether employers think they own the bodies of their employees or not.
Also, all the Scandinavian countries allow striking for political reasons and the sky hasn’t fallen over their.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
It would be just another risk of doing business Bevan. And not a particularly huge one.
I guess as long as your not the one at risk eh?
Vote:Roger, your a knob. There needs to be limits and quite frankly if you want employees to be able to strike for any reason whenever they want. Then why shouldnt employers be able to withdraw their employment for them doing so. I mean hey, they are humans too – dont they have rights as well? Dont they have the right to be able to employ staff that want to be able to work?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
KK – just explain to me how a collective agreement can stop you from sacking someone who is no good at their job. That’s all I’m asking.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“Roger, your a knob.”
Oh so now you’re reverting to insult throwing Bevan? Grow up man.
“There needs to be limits and quite frankly if you want employees to be able to strike for any reason whenever they want. Then why shouldn’t employers be able to withdraw their employment for them doing so.”
I agree, employers should be legally able respond with a lock-out in these instances.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Roger, I meant your a knob like Id call a mate a knob for bringing me a Steinlager instead of a Speights. Sorry if I offended.
“I agree, employers should be legally able respond with a lock-out in these instances.”
What and cause more disruption to the business? Its got to be a two way street Roger, it sounds like you want all the power in the hands of the unions – you cant have all the power in the hands of one or the other, that sounds like a sure recipe to send this country down the gurgler.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Tane, I’ve never had a collective agreement and I suspect you’ve never been a business owner and employer. The truth of an employment situation (eg poor performance) is overridden by the demand for adherence to a process (eg dismissal) leading employers having to pay grievance. Been their, suffered from that, Grrr and moved along.
I accept that there are a very small number employers who are objectionable. Given the chance I’d legislate them out of existence. However I get sick to death of those protecting workers rights bleating on about the nasty capitalist businesses exploiting the poor downtrodden workers.
I worked hard getting an education, worked hard getting experience in the real world, saw an opportunity, took a massive risk and invested everything I had, borrowed money and worked bloody hard to build up a business… that then created employment for others.
NZ needs a more hard working, self-motivated and innovative workforce, not more unionists and other apologists for lazy-ass workers’ rights.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Cry me a river, KK. I have actually employed and managed staff before, and I never had an issue. I’ve also been an employee covered by a collective agreement, so what?
Your issue seems to be with personal grievance procedures, not with collective agreements. So let’s just make one thing clear: you’ve been talking out your arse.
Unsurprisingly, I don’t agree with you that it’s too hard to sack staff. The current law simply requires that you provide evidence to back your case and follow a proper procedure. It’s called natural justice, and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“Roger, I meant your a knob like Id call a mate a knob for bringing me a Steinlager instead of a Speights. Sorry if I offended.”
Hey that’s ok bev – no harm done.
“What and cause more disruption to the business? Its got to be a two way street Roger, it sounds like you want all the power in the hands of the unions – you cant have all the power in the hands of one or the other, that sounds like a sure recipe to send this country down the gurgler.”
As I said, the sky hasn’t imploded in the Scandinavian countries. I just happen to think that supporting the democratic and human right to protest is more important that losing a tiny percentage of a country’s productive working hours.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Tane, We’ll agree to disagree and I won’t bite at personal insults. My experience is that cast-iron evidence with 95% correct process resulted in a hefty PG. That’s not natural justice.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
It may be a tiny percentage of a countries productive working hours, but a company losing 50% of its productive working force for a few days could send a company under. But hey, the workers just need to find new jobs, the employer loses more than just his job.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
“It may be a tiny percentage of a countries productive working hours, but a company losing 50% of its productive working force for a few days could send a company under. But hey, the workers just need to find new jobs, the employer loses more than just his job.”
If that was true then the scandanavian countries would have really really low employment rates hey Bev? Waddaya think? They must do right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
OK roger, now post what their emloyment relations law is. I mean seriously Im unaware of their strike laws, but I highly doubt its as simple as comparing an unemployment rate and saying “the scandinavians have it right….”.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Bev I read it in various academic texts – from memory you can find it in this book (though if you search long and hard enough I’m sure you can find it on the web).
“Royal, T. (2000) Working For McDonald’s in Europe: The Unequal Struggle. Routledge, London”
” I highly doubt its as simple as comparing an unemployment rate and saying “the scandinavians have it right….”.’
I’m not saying the Scandinavian countries are perfect – I’m just pointing out that having laws that protect democratic workers’ rights don’t necessarily suffer high unemployment rates and low employment rates.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
eek – i really need to proof-read my posts – but you get what I mean.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
And people say the class war is over?
Ah well.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Sonic, the only people who say that are the ones who think they’ve won
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
“Sonic, the only people who say that are the ones who think they’ve won”
Wow, didnt know we were at war. Wonder if I’ll hear more on the 6pm news…..
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
He this reminds me of a Leonard Cohen song “There is a War”. Not sure I entirely agree with it but thought it had some pertinence.
There is a war between the rich and poor
A war between the man and the woman
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
And the ones who say that there isn’t
“There is a war between the left and right
A war between the black and white
A war between the odd and the even”
Why don’t you come n back to the war, pick up you tiny burden
Vote:Why don’t you come on back to the war, let’s all get even
Why don’t you come on back to the war, can’t you hear me speaking?”
September 6th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
So lefties wont go to war to stop terrorists or remove a dictator, but mess with their pay conditions and annual leave entitlements and their will be hell to pay!
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Oh Bevan, get a grip.
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Isn’t the point to a strike to publicly withdraw your labour in order to make a point. Therefore if you keep it secret, what’s the bloody point?
Sounds like some posties got caught slacking off, and came up with a bizzare excuse, but not as bizzare as the employment court actually upholding it!
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I’d file it under futile gestures or heroic failures.
Well I’ve been in NZ for nearly five years now, and I doubt if I’d have even noticed a ‘secret strike’ by the posties – I just would have assumed it was business as usual.
Come to think of it, maybe they have been on ‘secret strike’ all that time! It would explain why it takes a letter five days to cross Auckland.
Evidently this ‘Secret Strike’ hit every one really hard and brought the employers crawling back to the negotiating table, under the insufferable weight of public outrage and the sheer strategic brilliance of the tactic.
Well done posties. I mean, what IQ do they have? ‘Secret Strike’ – I ask you!
What next – ‘pretend sausages’ from offended butchers? Or ‘faux-news’ from the Herald? (on second thoughts, scratch that last one)….
‘Secret Strike’….
priceless!
Still is should be a worker’s right to strike if they wish to. It just might help the process along if they tell someone. Reminds me of that classic headline:
“HIDE AND SEEK CHAMPION FOUND DEAD IN CUPBOARD”
Vote:September 6th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I am one funny dude, but I ain’t tellin you my address.
Vote:September 7th, 2007 at 7:50 am
“So lefties wont go to war to stop terrorists or remove a dictator”
Have you joined the US army or something Bevan?
Thought not chickenhawk.
Vote:September 7th, 2007 at 8:16 am
“Oh Bevan, get a grip.”
“Have you joined the US army or something Bevan?
Thought not chickenhawk.”
Looks like I hit a nerve…..
Vote: