Personal Grievances
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
The Government is reviewing personal grievance claims procedures to make them less onerous on employers.
John Key told the Council of Trade Unions the personal grievance process needed to be more coherent and easier.
“Substance-over-form issues are the area of concern – where someone has genuinely done something that warrants dismissal but because [the employers] haven’t followed the rules absolutely perfectly, they lose. It can be very expensive for small companies.”
Well overdue. Even large companies with scores of lawyers often fail to follow perfect process, and have to pay out money no matter how justified the dismissal is. For small companies, it is far worse, as they do not have access to in house legal advice, and often they just have to carry on with someone who is not up to the job, for fear of having to do a big pay out if they take action.
Quite like the gall of John Key in announcing the changes at the CTU conference, along with this report:
John Key laid down a challenge to teachers yesterday – sacrifice part of a pay rise so school support staff can have one.
Speaking at the Council of Trade Unions’ conference, the Prime Minister was challenged by Frances Guy from the teachers’ and support staff union, the NZ Educational Institute, over the nil pay increase offered to support staff. …
Mr Key said the staff were in a difficult position in their negotiations because of the fiscally restrained environment.
“Maybe one option is you guys ought to go and talk to your fellow unions and say, ‘Let’s have teachers taking less of a pay rise so it can be put toward education support staff’. See if they support you.”
Oh that is wonderful. What a cunning response. Of course Labour is outraged:
Labour’s education spokesman, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous” to propose setting the education groups against each other.
Outrageous Fortune perhaps 
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:40 am
Outrageous that one of the core financial and political supporters of Labour is having to deal with the realities of a tightened purse.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 am
I like Key but his statement about splitting the pay rise (so to speak) has the smack of Clarkesque arrogance. Some might find it clever or humourous but in the light of stories like this one last week re top civil servants pay rises:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10603391
Key’s remarks are like a red rag to a bull. It seems the troughers closest to the trough are allowed to feed to excess and the rest can fight over the crumbs.
Vote:If I was one of John boys advisers I’d be telling him to be a bit more discreet otherwise that 60% poll rating will be eroded over something that is of little relative value to the National Party, be a shame to see it wasted when it could be used on more important issues.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
John Key reads Sun Tzus art of war.
Divide and conquer seems to be a tactic of his. eg, when the maoris wanted to fly a flag on the harbour bridge. JK simply through the matter back to the maori, asking them which flag, knowing that maori will never agree on a common flag (a tribal thing maybe?).
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 am
wreck1080>Divide and conquer seems to be a tactic of his.
Is this divisive? It sounds to me like Key is encouraging worker solidarity so that they share an equal pay rise. The unions should jump at the chance to put some socialist principles in to action.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 am
I can see no harm in tidying the substance over form area up. Although it is something that the Court of Appeal and Employment Court has been saying and doing for years. Payouts are routinely reduced to take into account employee contribution.
I would have to say that compliance with procedure is not as hard as it is made out to be. A bit of common sense and some manners would get an employer close enough on almost every occasion. Telling someone to “fuck off” because they made a balls up without finding out the reasons why on the other hand tends to led to PGs.
As for the other article I have to laugh at the laments by the Union and Mallard of taking money off workers to pay other workers. Explain again what a progressive tax system is?
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
“CTU president Helen Kelly said the union had discussed similar ideas with the Minister of Finance, as the lowest-paid state workers were a priority for the CTU.
…she did not believe higher earners should have to forgo any chance of a pay increase so the less-well-paid could benefit.”
OMG! I never would have imagined I would read such a statement from a CTU president and so blatantly two faced. According to Helen Kelly the lowest paid are “a priority” but fuck’em anyway, the real priority for the CTU is the higher earners. I guess the higher earning Union members pay more in Union fees- so Helen in turn gets a pay rise?
And Trevor considers the idea of higher earners giving up a pay increase so lower income earners can benefit to be “outrageous”?! This is what Labour is about now? Screw everybody else, just look out for yourself? This is brand Goff? Shit, no wonder Labour are about as popular right now as Christchurch boyracers outside a hotel at 2 A.M.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
Bad form on Key.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Labour’s education spokesman, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous”
..pfftt.. ” outrageous ” he yells from the sidelines…pffttt…your’re outrageous mallard…
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
@GPT1: Quite correct. An effective PG procedure is perfectly easy to manage if you are all competent. The EMA, for example, provides very good guidance on how the set up a pretty foolproof and fair process, with which I have worked. The complaints from business are primarily from those who are not competent. I am surprised that the Right is so exercised by this. It was their ECA that generalised the personal grievance process as a means of protecting the individual. The ERA continued that ECA provision. It appears that the Right’s principles are to be abandoned when they work in the favour of the ‘wrong’ type of individual.
In relation to salary sharing, let’s do that, but across the whole education budget, up to and including Ms Tolley. And let’s require the private sector to introduce transparent gainsharing across all organisations. Indeed, let’s apply Mr Key’s principle as a universal feature of remuneration in NZ. Now, that would be cunning.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 am
Very little form OR substance in that Herald article unfortunately.
It’s SO outrageous that employers are expected to follow a procedure correctly when sacking someone. Time we got rid of that socialist carry-on. Bloody peasants should be more grateful to have jobs at all…
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 am
It is about People not Profits teachers do it for the people.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 am
Just get rid of the entire thing, allow employers the right of hire and fire at will.
No employee who is good at this job will suffer, no employee who gives his boss a hard days work will be threatened.
DPF is right on this, it is a fucking nightmare trying to get rid of a “bad apple”, it also works against an employer who may want to take a “punt” on somebody who may have been unemployed for a reasonable length of time or on a person returning to the workforce.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
The employer/employee relationship is often referred to as a “job market” Unfortunately this market is not an open and free market for the employer because of the intimidation by employees towards employers. As an employer of 28 staff for over 20 years we have had some bad apples over the years and trying to get rid of some of them has been an absolute nightmare.
But experience is a good teacher and now we take special care during the hiring process and extra special care during the firing process.
Employees need to realise that I am buying one thing from them. Their labour. It’s a commodity. Nothing more, nothing less. If it becomes too expensive or the quality deteriorates then I reserve the right to go buy it from somewhere else. Most people think that their boss owes them a living. How peculiar!
Slightly off topic but I remember I was emailed daily by some mob called the EEO who wanted me to make sure I hired an equal number of females and males. I eventually rang the head women in WGN and told her to stop interfering in my business and that I would employ whom I thought was the best person for the job. I finally got off the email list but I had to listen to a 10 minute lecture first.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
When I worked as in consultant in ER I always warned my clients (the Employer) that even though they had a strong case (I won most of the time) Mediation through the DOL no matter how fair the mediators tried to be was still ‘cheque book mediation’ and we may decide to pay because it could be cheaper than going to the authority.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
OTGO its not new. In another life I was interviewed by a panel of SSC one of whom was Margaret (now Dame) Bazeley. She sat there looking totally bored and asked her one question after 30 minutes or so. “What is your attitude towards employing women and Equal Employment?”
Somehow I knew the interview was blown when I answered that I always endeavoured to employ the best person for the job regardless of race, sex, education etc and that I have found good and bad in every group whichever way you want to slice society.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
back in the day teachers and farmers were very important to the community.
these days people seem more focused on what makes money than what feeds us and educates us.
All the people i know that started teaching have all since scrapped the idea in search of enough money.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
OTGO, did you not know that the gummint employs women whose only job is to put other women in positions of authority ?
Vote:I brought this up with some “communications” people in various ministries and tried to point out the stupidity of it. Their response was along the lines of………. doesn’t matter because it is done with Maori, PIs and gays too. Well that’s OK then.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Lucy its still the way, what’s worse is its what we’re taught in HR resolution.
I guess it is pragmatic to pay less even if you are right.
I think employment disputes in NZ are pretty even sided, there are employees that are complete muppets and you wish one of the remedies was a bullet to the brain, to stop someone else having to put up with them, but equally there are employers who couldn’t do a worse job of firing people if they tried, some are so bad you wonder how they manage to have survived so long.
Personally I think there should be a register of all employers that have consistently failed (more than twice) in their firing procedures, and also a register of employees who have had more than 2 cases thrown out, or have had a grievance where serious violence or theft was proven, even if they win on procedure
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Some of the comments on this thread gives grounds to understand why we are a low productivity, low R&D, capital shallow, low performing economy. Well, for those of that ilk, you have a perfect Minister of Education, taking us back into the Victorian era. Maybe the ‘at will’ tradition would like to see children down mines again (Mr Brownlee seems determined to create the opportunity). After all, why should there be age limits on the freedom of choice of individuals. And who needs, holidays, meal breaks, rest periods, guaranteed payment of wages, H&S legislation etc etc – surely this is holding back the real creators of wealth in NZ. Perhaps the civilised world has been wrong about labour rights all along.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
He’s a really unifying sort of guy. Brings people together. In that charismatic, money trader sort of way.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Budget 2009
“Budget 2009 includes a net increase in new operating initiatives that totals $5.8 billion across the period from 2008/09 to 2012/13. In the 2012/13 year these new initiatives total $1.45 billion. Some initiatives are front-loaded into 2009/10 to help take the worst edges off the effects of the recession.
The increase in new operating initiatives, as well as changes in benefit forecasts and other forecast changes, results in a total increase in core Crown expenses of $2.9 billion in the 2009/10 fiscal year, after including the impact of savings in the 2009/10 year.
The combined impact of these increases, as well as projected future budget spending, is an increase of $16.4 billion in core Crown expenses between 2007/08 and 2012/13.”
Yeah, them’s tight purse strings.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Robert – I think the primary frustration is from businesses who do the process right and then still get taken for a PG. If they fight and win costs are either not awarded, low and/or unrecoverable. Basically I have to advise an employer, even with a strong case, that writing a cheque for $1500 is the cost effective approach. That is galling.
I have less sympathy for an employer who is an outright bully and makes no effort to be fair. Example I can think of is screaming in front of customer for employee to f off. Real nice.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
In general I agree with Big Bruv and the ‘hire and fire at will’ concept having worked for a number of private sector and public sector employers and now own my own business….
Except…
The HR dept of the Uni I worked at were a bunch of dicks….. they operated in a logic free zone and rewarded brown nosing, PC behaviour and punished the hard workers. Getting out was the best thing I did but this was a grossly unfair way to run an organisation with apparently no accountability.
I can see the need for some controls but what we have now is ridiculously left wing, some balance is needed.
Vote:October 22nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
@GPT1: I understand your point. There are times when outcomes appear not to be fair, and I can think of cases where the employer has been right in substance and still lost because of process. The point is that the balance lies there (as the ECA intended) to ensure adequate protection from vicarious behaviour by the employer. If you remember, the explicit deal under the ECA was we will not promote collective rights (in order to favour the employer and the enterprise) but the quid pro quo was exemplary protection of individual rights. This was Bill Birch in operation, not Helen Clark!
Vote: