EPMU sacks Shaun Tan
The EPMU has announced it has sacked Shaun Tan. They also give a timeline of events, as they see it.
Now this may go to the Employment Relations Authority, and litigation, so I’m not going to say who is right or wrong. But I will say that the EPMU makes a strong case justifying their actions. I suggest people read the linked statements before jumping to conclusions.
I was highly amused by this part though:
“It should also be noted that Shawn was employed on a probationary basis for six months because of unsatisfactory references from previous employers. The requirement for Shawn to remain focused on union work was expressly part of the probationary arrangement.
Using a probationary period to dismiss someone. Didn’t a union organise a march against such things recently? And 180 days, not 90 days.
Some extracts from the EPMU timeline:
March 10: Tan is employed as an EPMU support centre organiser on a six month probationary period.
May: Tan counselled about his heavy Internet use.
July 16: In his capacity as Asian Anti-Crime Group Media and Legal advisor, Tan organises a meeting between the AAG and the ACT party in order to broker a deal in which AAG organisers, including Tan, are provided with electorate and list candidacies in exchange for the AAG mobilising Chinese votes for ACT. Rodney Hide is in attendance
July 18: Tan discusses ACT party candidacy and AAG involvement with EPMU Director of Organising, Bill Newson, and concludes that he will not be standing for ACT in order to devote spare time to AAG.
Tan prepares CV to send to ACT Party electorate agent Brian Nicolle.
July 22/23: Bill Newson confirms to Tan the union has no issue with his AAG involvement.
July 25: Tan provides CV to prospective employer (emails detail Tan’s continued search for other employment from July 18 onwards).
August 7: Tan emails recruitment agency seeking alternative employment.
The EPMU has also placed their evidence on their website plus more here. And the 13 page letter of dismissal.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
A union with standards. Two of them.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Three John.
Don’t forget their blog.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“It should also be noted that Shawn was employed on a probationary basis for six months because of unsatisfactory references from previous employers. The requirement for Shawn to remain focused on union work was expressly part of the probationary arrangement.”
I completely agree with the EPMU, and would argue that this should be standard practice in all employment contracts.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
wow talk about putting the boot in.
wonder if he will challenge them on their claim of “unsatisfactory references”.
imagine if an employer did that to one of the members… there would be hell to pay.
hope he sues
September 10th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
This is clearly how you sack people: smear them publicly and with an amount of publicity that 30 years from now his name will still be remembered. Putting all the records online, wow.
And probationary period of 6 months, how very interesting. Imagine if anyone else tried this.
I completely agree with John about the two standards.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Their response sure as hell hasn’t been in “good faith”, under the ERA especially publishing personal emails between Tan and his representative. That said, it wasn’t particularily prudent to be using the epmu.org.nz email like that.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Grant
So the “unsatisfactory references” where not a problem when Tan was a member of the Greens, they only became an issue when he joined ACT.
Unions and Labour = scum.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
DPF, the probationary basis Shawn Tan would have been employed under is set out in section 67 of the Employment Relations Act:
Note subsection (1)(b) – due process is still required in taking any disciplinary action and there is still redress available through personal grievance provisions.
That is very different from National’s policy, which will allow employers to fire at will during the first 90 days with no redress available to the employee.
[Edit - bruv, presumably they were a problem, which is why he was employed on a probationary basis.]
September 10th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I suspect most employers would feel a lot of sympathy with the EPMU. But if any employer acted in this way – the EPMU would be all over them like a rash. Posting employment details and a dismissal letter on the website ….. that is overkill – and a little bit mean!
I think Mr Tan needs a good union to represent him.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Putting aside any views about Shawn Tan or the EPMU, isn’t there actually a more serious issue here?
That issue is that the information that has come out now suggests that the ACG succesfully secured Tan’s place on the ACT List with promises of organisational and other support for ACT.
Parties are required by statute to select their party lists democratically – meaning that their members have a say in the process. Yet here we have evidence of a body external to ACT effectively buying the number 10 slot on the list.
If I was an ACT member I would not be happy.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Trying to backstab your employer using their email system is plain stupid.
Note, also, that ACT are so pathetically desperate to escape political oblivion at this election that they are prepared to countenance a sordid policy of exploiting racism to drive a wedge between Asians and other New Zealanders just so they can garner a few votes in their efforts to survive.
ACT is an utterly disgusting, morally bankrupt party unfit to put forward any candidate for public office.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
“ACT is an utterly disgusting, morally bankrupt party unfit to put forward any candidate for public office.”
As opposed to the current Labour/Winston First shenanigans going on?
September 10th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
currently there is no such thing as a legal probationary period. You still have to go through the same processes to get rid of someone during a probationary period as afterwards. So it serves no useful purpose, except to (commonly) provide the employee with a reduced notice period if the employee doesn’t like the job. I.e. it’s of benefit only to the employee, and serves the employer no use in terms of the reasonable goal of determining if someone is really right for the job.
Many employment contracts have probation periods written into them, but many of these would be illegal.
ERA will have a field-day with this one.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Also, I thought the standard probationary period was 3 months? 6 Months is a bit lengthy, the employment contracts and internet use policies seem to be the most restrictive of any I’ve seen. Doesn’t sound like a nice place to work at all.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Just a quick comment:
A full rebuttal is being drafted up by myself at the moment.
But I want to respond in particular to the “unsatisfactory references” that Andrew Little referred. I was battling a bout of severe sleep apnoea at the time, prior to my appointment at the EPMU. This is a condition that causes you to doze off without warning and rather uncontrollably – hence my apparent ‘inability to stay focused’. I have documents to prove I was diagnosed as such, and that my condition was actually described in the report as being “life threatening”.
It is disgusting that I have been persecuted over a health condition, and a very private one might I add. I’m pretty sure the EPMU would go to hell and back to bat for one of their members being harangued for nursing a genuine and serious health condition. Mr Little’s comments would be akin to disciplining someone for being diagnosed with cancer. Utterly outrageous.
This shows you the calibre of the EPMU, really. I can’t think of anyone who has stooped any lower.
As for everything else – my press release is on its way.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Toad
Do you support the way the EPMU have dismissed Mr Tan?
If so, would you be of the same opinion if he was still a member of the Greens?
September 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
This is a condition that causes you to doze off without warning and rather uncontrollably – hence my apparent ‘inability to stay focused’.
Sounds like you’ll make a hell of an MP.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Thomas the Unbeliever, I think it was Shawn who first went public with this issue (given Shawn is here, he will be able to confirm).
If that is the case, then the EPMU publicly posting its response, after due process, is entirely appropriate.
Not that I know enough about the facts of the substantive employment relations problem to comment on that, I might add.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“ACT is an utterly disgusting, morally bankrupt party unfit to put forward any candidate for public office.”
Hello pot, this is kettle…..
Either you have one hell of a sense of humour, or you are the epitome of a hyprocritical socialist.
From the tone of your post, I’m guessing the latter.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Shawn said:
“As for everything else – my press release is on its way.”
Shawn, a sage piece of advice. Forget the press release; forget the media battle – you are being pawned by Kings and Queens.
Win in the ERA. That’s all you need to focus on.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
bruv, if Shawn were still a member of the Greens my position would be no different.
Any employer is required to comply with an employment agreement with an employee and to comply with the principles of natural justice in takign disciplinary action against an employee.
Given that there is a bit of “he said, they said” going on here, and that the matter may end up before the Employment Relations Authority, I don’t think it is appropriate for me to make any comment at all about “the way the EPMU have dismissed Mr Tan” (who is a friend of mine, despite his conversion to a party with some political and economic principles I strongly disagree with).
September 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Like all LEFTIES the EPMU and that little twerpt Little talk out of both side of their mouths at the same time.
They are 2 faced arseholes and when they get exposed they cant take the heat They are cowards and lowlife
Lets watch that excuse for justice AKA the Employment Court sqwirm as they try so hard not to apply the same set of rules as they do to other employers
September 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
dim, “I was battling a bout of severe sleep apnoea at the time, prior to my appointment at the EPMU.”
Good luck with the adult literacy classes.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
If there is a note of humour in all of this it must be Mr Tan’s delusion that number 10 on the ACT list is going to propel him into parliament (read the documents). Does he also believe in the tooth fairy?
September 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
The media picked up on it, and came to me for comment first: Note that I was suspended on Monday 18 August 2008, but this wasn’t reported until Friday 22 August 2008. If I had gone to the media first, it would have been reported on Tuesday 19 August 2008.
Good to see you taking a principled stand, toad. As for me being a friend of yours, I’ll take your word for it – except that my friends also happened to have kept in regular contact with me throughout the entire three-and-a-half week period of my suspension, checking in to see if everything’s alright. That’s all I have to say in reply to your comments.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Helen, Winnie, Mike, Andrew – once more with feeling:
“And we will all go down together,
Yes we will all go down together!”
September 10th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Oh dear Brenden, people in glass houses.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Better #10 on the list of a party with principles and miss out on a parliamentary role, than #10 on the list of a party with no principles, that holds the New Zealand public in contempt, and who actively support the defrauding of the electoral system.
Still, if your only focus is getting a cushy government job for yourself in which you can boss everyone else about, then Labour is the party for you. Just plug your nose because you will be plumbing the depths of a moral sewer set in the middle of an ethical desert.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
John Key, put a note in your diary:
“Deregister the EMPU as soon as I am sworn in”
September 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
i sent my thoughts to the EPMU i will be interestested if they reply, ( I have been a EPMU union member) for at least a 1000 years or really 35 years but im WORRIED to many universiry educated liarbour plebes seem to run the union , they come and go ,( the bright and the stupid ) but we pay our dues
September 10th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
# John Ansell (190) 4 0 Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Helen, Winnie, Mike, Andrew – once more with feeling:
“And we will all go down together,
Yes we will all go down together!”
John Ansell, is that from Billy Joel, “Miami 2017″?
September 10th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
toad (471) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating3 Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“DPF, the probationary basis Shawn Tan would have been employed under is set out in section 67 of the Employment Relations Act:”
etc, etc, etc……..
At least you were honest enough to add:
“Note subsection (1)(b) – due process is still required in taking any disciplinary action and there is still redress available through personal grievance provisions.
That is very different from National’s policy, which will allow employers to fire at will during the first 90 days with no redress available to the employee.”
“…..still redress available through personal grievance provisions….”
Translation: employers are up for a few grand in “go away money” irrespective of circumstances.
I hope Shawn Tan does the EPMU like a dinner under the current law as it stands. Come to think of it, what about that Parliamentary Messenger who was summarily sacked by the gummint for leaking the Telecom unbundling policy? If he hasn’t been able to dip into the trough for his few grand, why not?
“……very different from National’s policy, which will allow employers to fire at will during the first 90 days with no redress available to the employee.”
Unless I am protected by that law, Toad, I personally am NEVER going to risk my shirt on employing my first trainee. I will move to Aussie and do it there if things do not improve very very soon in this shitty little pea-brained socialist hole of a country. And there is a few thousand other Kiwis every year who think the same, not counting the already-established employers.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
SHOCK HORROR!!!!
Peter Williams the 3rd trustee to the spencer trust maybe???
September 10th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
that’s from Billy Joel’s song “Goodnight Saigon” off the Nylon Curtain album. Classic stuff.
As for trialling employees – it’s hard to believe it’s not legal, so someone can get through some interviews, and turn out to be a complete lemon – even if only alienating and pissing off your other staff so they leave – they can have a huge negative effect on a business.
It costs money to hire people. Employers don’t want to fail to get the right person for the job, so there is no incentive to hire and fire willy nilly, but there is a definite need for employers to be able to deal with problem employees, and get the right people for the job.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
It seems to me that people who don’t like the idea of a probationary period are generally of the variety who find it difficult to “hold down a job”.
I have yet to hear from any leftie exactly why an employer might want to have a constant stream of new employees in his business, particularly when, for many industries, proper competence doesn’t come for a year or two.
After all, if employers really just wanted to “get rid of workers”, why would they hire them in the first place.
From a strictly theoretical point of view, I would actually support a system based entirely on freedom of contract. The market would quite easily be able to determine the price of labour, and certain no-hopers might get a bit of a wake-up call when they realise that they actually don’t offer that much to their employer that can’t be found elsewhere….
September 10th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
“I was highly amused by this part though:
“It should also be noted that Shawn was employed on a probationary basis for six months because of unsatisfactory references from previous employers. The requirement for Shawn to remain focused on union work was expressly part of the probationary arrangement.
Using a probationary period to dismiss someone. Didn’t a union organise a march against such things recently? And 180 days, not 90 days.
”
So you think the EMPU should have been able to send him packing with none of this? Just Shawn to the bosses office and “your gone, if your lucky you’ll get your previous 2 weeks pay”
[DPF: He had been there for more than 90 days]
September 10th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
adc: ‘that’s from Billy Joel’s song “Goodnight Saigon” off the Nylon Curtain album. Classic stuff.’
Yes PhilBest, or any Greatest Hits compilation.
A beautiful song about fear and camaraderie in the Vietnam War, which vets band together and sing at his concerts. His best song ever if you ask me.
Perhaps our beleaguered lefties could perform it for the Telethon?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Buggar me! A union being a bastard of an employer?
In the mean time, I have a wee enquiry. I have a bunch of declared but rather useless Labour Party supporters/activists on my pay-roll. Could fellow readers please advise me as to whether I should sack all of them for their beliefs (or mental illness, if you want to put it that way)? Please, do let me know. I shall be especially interested to hear from EMPU paid and/or sponsored bloggers.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Rich Prick – fire ‘em! The EPMU have set what they have decided is the new precedent so run with it.
I am confused, because Shawn is well known as a Green – so why didn’t the EPMU give him harrassment about that? Is it connected to the fact that the EPMU through their taxpayer funded mouthpiece The Standard are promoting an LPG (lab/prog/green) Government, so would not want to attack one of their own.
It seems so fishy. Why are people lying about this? It seems honesty and the left cannot seem to come together these days.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:13 am
To add to that, the EPMU should just say that they are pissed that Shawn has changed sides and be done with it. It doesn’t take half a dozen lawyers and a tribunal to figure that out.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:45 am
[DPF: He had been there for more than 90 days]
As far as im aware (not being a member or in anyway involved) the EPMU is campaigning against the loss of all rights at the end of the probationary period, not the length of it.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:01 am
The EMPU had better put aside some of its “promote Labour” advertising budget as it will need some spare money to settle the compensation it will need to pay out to Shawn.
Added bonus is that it won’t be able to turn to the government for additional cash because the National/ACT government won’t be accommodating, unlike EPMU’s buddies in Labour.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Hypocracy from socialists?????
Gosh.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Thanks, guys, I knew it was Billy Joel, I just couldn’t remember which song.
But I find the parallel between Vietnam vets singing “going down together” and Helen and Co singing the same line, to cause just a little bit of a nasty taste in my mouth for some reason……..that was probably the mental blockage I had that stopped me from picking that it was THAT song, too…..
September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Asking what the rats on the Titanic were singing might be the best move.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
michael wood(1) wrote:
“That issue is that the information that has come out now suggests that the ACG succesfully secured Tan’s place on the ACT List with promises of organisational and other support for ACT.
Parties are required by statute to select their party lists democratically – meaning that their members have a say in the process. Yet here we have evidence of a body external to ACT effectively buying the number 10 slot on the list.”
The ACG didn’t buy anything! The issue here, michael wood, is that you are talking absolute bollocks!! If you have evidence that the ACT list was not selected democratically and that a body external to ACT was “effectively buying the number 10 slot on the list” then let’s see it. Put up or shut up!!!
September 12th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Dear Michael Wood,
If you’re the Michael Wood who is my ex-colleague from Finsec (the finance sector union), as well as No. 56 on the Labour Party list, then I give my sincere greetings to you.
Here’s an extract from my draft press release, which I hope addresses your concerns:
“The EPMU claims the AAG sought to ‘buy’ placings on the ACT List. The reality is, out of the three candidates that were put forward, only two made it onto the List (neither of which is a guaranteed place in Parliament, mind you), whilst the third pulled out.
“Moreover, both candidates had to undergo the same candidate application process as every other contender – a process that was both thorough and rigourous. At the end of the day, it was merit which decided final rankings. The Board made its decision, all things considered.
“To this day, you will find that both AAG members, who were ranked as the 10th and 23rd candidates respectively after the ranking process was done, are still actively involved in the ACT campaign. This demonstrates that simply securing certain placings on the List was not the agenda at all.”
And the name is “AAG”, not “ACG”, for the record.
Talking about selecting Party Lists democratically, I’m sure you’re aware that EPMU National Secretary Andrew Little was personally rung by Helen Clark a number of times and beseeched not only to stand for Labour this election, but also to accept position number 3 on the Labour List. How democratic is it when a unilateral decision/appointment is made? And how does Phil Goff feel, knowing that he was not the original designated No. 3?
Please keep your house in order before casting aspersions on other houses.
Furthermore, after your leader’s pathetic attempts to vouch for Winston’s credibility, and her equally pathetic denials of all knowledge of his shenanigans, I submit that you refrain from embarassing your Party any further. This is an act of charity on my part. And proof that ACT does care about the welfare of others.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Shawn, you are a wee gold mine! Let the secrets continue to roll on out! Little at number 3? Scary!
I have a funny feeling that when Helen goes that the EPMU will try and take over the Labour Party completely. Watch this space!