CTU proves the law is great
November 12th, 2010 at 4:10 pm by David FarrarMy God the CTU campaign against the 90 day law is wonderful. One of their early examples won a court case (proving that the law does not leave most workers without protections), and they have now released another video which totally undermines their argument:
In this video the aggrieved ex-employee says he was never told of an employment contract or a 90 day trial. He goes onto say he has never had an employment contract in any hospitality job.
This where the CTU campaign backfires. He did not sign an employment contract in which he agrees to a 90 day probation period. Therefore it does not apply. He is going to win damages in court.
You have to wonder how desperate the CTU is for “examples” when the best they can come up with are ones that don’t even apply.
Now you may wonder, what if he had signed an employment contract with a probation period. did they really sack him at the end of 90 days merely for putting “too much sauce and aioli” on servings?
I’m suspicious, because why would an employer sack someone who is otherwise a great employee just for that? That will just cost the employer money and experience getting a replacement.
Sure enough the employer has a different story – one the CTU and Labour forgot to mention:
Mr Collins had said Mr Greave was not sacked because he used too much sauce and aioli.
“On the last day, my mum, the owner of the cafe, said to him, cut the use out, it’s too much wastage.
“[He was sacked] because he would change menus, wouldn’t listen to me as a superior.
“He wouldn’t listen to any instructions either from the owners of the cafe or myself as manager. [He] wouldn’t do his job the way we required it.
“He just wasn’t what we were looking for in a chef and basically I believe he just wasn’t willing to have a younger … member in charge.”
Mr Collins, who is 22 years old, said his age was a problem for Mr Greave, who called Mr Collins “very inexperienced” in the video.
I have to say the employer’s version has the ring of truth about it. You listen to the video of the ex-employee and you get the impression he thought he was better than the owners and he was indispensable.
At the end of the day, why would they have sacked him if it was only using too much sauce?
Related posts:
- Myths over the probation period bill
- Employment Dismissal Process
- Idiot Lawyers
- Trial periods working well
November 12th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I saw Paul Henry grill that female union leader about this. He said, well, just how many cases are there? And she said something like 5. And he said five? that’s all? It’s pathetic really. Maybe it was even three, I don’t remember.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
That court case was won on the basis that the employee didn’t sign their employment agreement until the second day of their employment. As they’d been an employee for the same firm before agreeing to the 90-day trial in writing (i.e. they’d been an employee for the previous day), there wasn’t allowed to be a 90-day trial.
This hardly proves what you claim it does.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Just posted over at the standard about this.Its just a case of trying to suck in the stupid.You know if I was a labour voter I would be pissed off being treated like I was a complete fucking moron.The case has absolutly fuck all to do with the 90 day law.The young employer was out of his depth,and also likely that it was the only job the so called chef could get.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
“That court case was won on the basis that the employee didn’t sign their employment agreement until the second day of their employment. As they’d been an employee for the same firm before agreeing to the 90-day trial in writing (i.e. they’d been an employee for the previous day), there wasn’t allowed to be a 90-day trial.”
What an outrage, let’s hope they take this employer to the cleaners and teach him/her not to try and create jobs once and for all. Worse than slavery.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
He who pays the piper, calls the tune. I have employed contractors who do not listen, when they finish the job I pay them and never employ them again. They all plead innocence.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
I love the smell of desperation in the afternoon
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I love these things, they’re a public service identifying tricky, whinging muppets who should be given a wide berth by any employer.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Have a look at this:
http://jdo.justice.govt.nz/jdo/GetJudgment/?judgmentID=180595
Basically IRD sacked a staff lawyer after Crown Law said it would refuse to work with her. She is going to court.
Vote:What would you make of this? Someone else who thinks she knows the lot?
Matthew Palmer (Deputy Solicitor General – Public Law) is Sir Geofrey Palmer’s son (though nothing turns on this) and a former law school dean.
November 12th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
I just wonder if the guy noticed that numbers were dropping and stock and supplies were running down for a few weeks before he got the shock of his life and lost his job. He said in the clip that numbers were down and it was quiet, perhaps he didn’t equate that with takings and therefore the ability to pay his wages was being squeezed.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
There are always two sides to a personal grievance, that is why it becomes a grievance. Farrar, of corrse, believes the employer’s side and so will most people here. That should come as no surprise.
Would they sack someone for using too much sauce? Yes, they may well do. Sauce costs money.
Employers dismiss people for all sorts of reasons. I recall an employer, a large company, who took on a very talented young man with a medical condition. They were fully informed of the illness and that it would prevent the kid from doing certain types of work. Then they put him into a role doing exactly the work he couldn’t do, and then fired him. Employers don’t always act rationally.
We have no idea how many people have been sacked under this bad law and we never will. Most people prefer to forget the experience, it takes a lot of balls to speak up.
[DPF: I don't always believe the employer. Sadly there are some bad and abusive employers out there. But the vast majority are good, and make logical decisions]
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Maggie “We have no idea how many people have been sacked under this bad law and we never will.”
Given there’s so little evidence of employers exhibiting demonic behaviour could you possibly think perhaps you’re being a little judgmental? Even this case boils down to a young employer not handling the situation properly. And although the 90 day bill was talked about, it doesn’t even apply.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Right Now, it is a simple statement of fact. We will never know the figures.
In most cases there are faults on both sides. This employer acted illegally. Surely it is possible to get some basic advice on what you need to do to employ somebody? A quick visit to the Labour Department website or a phone call is all that is necessary to ensure you obey the law.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Maggie
Would that have been before the nasty 90 day bill or was this an example of how awful this new law is compared to the old one?
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Maggie,
Yup, could be zero. Could be lots. You seem to think that don’t know means “lots”. Given the attention that Labour and the unions are putting into attempting to bad mouth this law, I’m inclined to believe that if there were any significant volume of cases out there, they would have come to light.
Or, most people who leave a job prefer to move on to the next one, rather than dwelling on the reasons why the last one didn’t work out. It is actually possible for a particular employment to not work out without it being anyone’s “fault” – the individual just wasn’t suited to the role. Doesn’t mean they’re bad, doesn’t mean the employer is evil. Just not suited.
(and, by the way, I don’t agree this is bad law. That is a classic example of why you get pinged on the comment threads here – you take something that is a reasonably factual statement – that we don’t know how many – and turn it into a judgment with no basis “this bad law”. Those are the bits that people react to.)
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
I wouldn’t hire Aaron, who thought his employer was “a bit of an egg” never mind giving him 90 days to prove otherwise. His face could only fit a Labour Party ad or a union poster, just not my work-place. Move on loser.
And if he told me on day one he was a leftie I wouldn’t have taken him on at all.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Do these fuckwits not realise that the capital invested in cafes and such like come from people who aspire slightly more from life than Aaron? Why the fuck should they stand to loose it all as a consequence of employing a fuckwit? Maggie, help us with this. You seem to champion fuckwits.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 5:51 am
The point David is making is that if Aaron is the picture child for the CTU’s campaign against the 90 Day law they are on very thin ice – to the point of scraping bottom of the barrel. Yes there are bad employers and there should be laws to protect workers but the numbers are indeed very small.
Employment law is always a balancing act between competing and contested world views on the role of capital and workers. Unions believe that the law should favour the worker and employers and their trade groups form the view that centre left governments (heavily influenced by union donations and union backed/formerly employed MPs) screw the scrum in favour of workers. Those on the left see the Nats as screwing the scrum in favour of employers – hence the see-sawing law changes each time the governments change.
Over time and if amendments are based on sane, rational evidence of what works and what doesnt in the real world, then we could end up with a workable compromise. I see the 90 Day amendment as part of that process. That the CTU must resort to a contested claim of questionable relevance to the law in question as an integral part of their campaign against said law tells us that the shock horror widespread abuse predicted by the unions is not happening. To say the sky will fall (a tactic often used by the left) when it doesnt seriously dents their credibility.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 7:38 am
The video would have been more effective if Helen Kelly hadn’t stuck her face in it.. there goes the credibility of the whole video. I know 2500 workers (the hobbit) that would that would spit on it.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 9:54 am
burt, not sure why you consider it relevant, but it was way before the 90-day legislation. It wa
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Paul, you are absolutely right about one thing. Anyone who expresses an opinion different from the right wing norm gets a rapid and nasty reaction.
What are you saying, that I am not allowed to give an opinion? Is that the only way to avoid being abused round here?
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 10:03 am
This law is bad law because it removes the right of a sacked worker to know the reason for his dismissal and the right to challenge it. If you support the law it means you believe someone should be able to be sacked without knowing why, and have no right to find out and seek some redress.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 10:08 am
“If you support the law it means you believe someone should be able to be sacked without knowing why, and have no right to find out and seek some redress.”
Only for 90 days Maggie and fact is, by that time, the employer has invested a lot in training and they’d be incredibly foolish to get rid of an average or high performer because they simply have to start again from scratch with the next one.
What about that don’t you lefties get? Why do you think this law will apply to anyone except below par performers? Why? Can’t answer that, can you.
Given that you can’t answer it, based on the fact you haven’t to date, your argument disappears in a puff of logic. So just get over it already.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Maggie, I don’t agree that it is the opinion that is getting the reaction. It’s the opinion dressed up as fact, and the complete refusal to ever say “that’s my opinion, I accept others have different opinion.” You refuse to ever accept that opinions can be wrong, and you usually don’t provide a logic chain for your opinions other than stating it is so.
I support the law, and I have no problem with people, within a probation period, being sacked with the reason being “it didn’t work out”, and for the employee having no redress for that. In fact, that is specifically what this law set out to do, and I see it as good law because it is achieving what it tried to.
The reason I think that is a reasonable objective is because I believe this means that employers will take risks on hiring staff who might not work out, knowing that they can exit that employee again within 90 days. If they have no such ability, then they will choose not to hire anyone who looks risky, as the costs, administration and time involved in terminating someone are very high.
I have run that process myself a number of times with staff who work for me, and it typically costs me 3 months pay for the individual being terminated, plus about 10% of a more senior person’s time for that 3 months whilst they run the stringent process involved, plus about 5% of an HR person’s salary for those 3 months, plus about 5% of my time for those 3 months. And because the process is so onerous, we usually put up with low performance for about 6-9 months before we start working on it – because my more junior staff avoid telling me there is a problem because they don’t like running the termination process.
What that means when I’m hiring is that I am very reluctant to take risks. Someone whose CV and interviews are pretty good, but has one attribute that gives me question, doesn’t get hired. Under the 90 day rule, I’m much more inclined to take a risk.
I’d also note that this “bad law” has an equivalent in most western countries. Interesting that so many countries find a need for such a bad law.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 10:36 am
The selectively edited clips from the interview with the employee prove nothing about the 90 day trial period. Clearly it did not apply. Whether the employee has a personal grievance remains to be seen. If the employee’s narration is accurate, then he is likely to succeed. Anybody making any sort of rush to judgement however on the basis of selectively presented facts used for propaganda in a fight against a law that does not apply to the circumstance of the case would be most unwise. Equally, anybody relying on the the employer’s response, presumably elicited by a journalist, would be equally unwise.
Vote:As far as the posts on this thread are concerned:
1. Not all of the good faith obligations have been the abrogated by the 90 day rule.
2. The Stokes Valley case is still authority for the fact that if an employee asks why the employee has been dismissed under the 90 day rule, the employer is bound to give an honest answer.
3. Some people have a singular ability to be complete arseholes. This is not an exclusive club. Membership is open to all and sundry whether they are employers or employees. If anyone is going to use the argument that employers are more peculiarly affected by the trait simply on the weight of numbers, we have to bring back into the equation the number of employees who are validly dismissed and in respect of whom there is no publicity at all.
4. I deal with both employers and employees. Most of them are well-intentioned. Many of them make mistakes. The whole purpose of the 90 day rule is to enable employer to take a chance without accountability for an error of judgement. The rationale obviously presupposes that employers will act in good faith. The CTU position is based on the presupposition that a majority of employers will not act in good faith. The philosophical question is therefore whether any form of relationship should, from the outset, be shrouded in negativity and distrust. If that is the underlying view of industrial relations in this country then no wonder we are struggling.
November 13th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
reid, you tell me I can’t answer a question you haven’t asked me before. Very sensible.
The law doesn’t just apply to poor performers, it applies to everyone. People are dismissed for many reasons, not just poor performance. Employers, like employees, don’t always behave rationally, often they lose their rag and act out of impulse. This particular employer didn’t even have the common sense to provide an employment contract which seriously questions his judgement.
Nookin, you said a bundle. The act allows an employer to act without taking any responsibility or being accountable. In any other setting rightwingers would be howling in anger (they are supposed to believe in personal responsibility) but not in employment law. Why?
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Nookin, you also make the point that, before this law and for many years, employers have been able validly to dismiss workers without comeback.
So why do they need this law?
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Paul, the Nuremburg Laws achieved what they set out to do. Did that make them good law?
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Maggie, STFU.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
As a small business I have taken on people because of the 90 day rule. Yes I may have created the job and employeed them anyway but the 90 day rule means my risk of creating the position and getting a loser are greatly reduced so I was willing to take a chance (3 of my staff have come in via this method, 2 are still here, 1 didn’t work out). In fact I took on a young person from the dole this week. Unskilled but being paid above minimum wage ($15+). She was very happy to offer me the 90 day option if I took a chance on her so I did.
So please explain why this is a bad law. Other than because Nationla bought it in and the unions say it’s bad. What is bad?
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Paul, opinions cannot be wrong. Facts can be wrong.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I’ll ignore Eddie. Obviously having trouble with his new pills.
badmac, I have already stated why this law is wrong. It removes from employers any measure of accountability. It is designed for lazy employers who can’t be bothered taking trouble over choosing new staff. It removes any personal responsibility for their actions. It removes the right of an employee to have his day in court and challenge his dismissal.
The 90-day rule doesn’t greatly reduce your chances of getting a “loser”. If you don’t want one then take some care over your recruitment and be prepared to provide adequate oversight and training. If you’re not prepared to do these things, then don’t hire.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Maggie, I dismissed a person in January, they clearly broke the law (police were informed, it was my legal obligation to do so, but gave a warning rather than prosecute), went against policy and the moral code I apply to my business ( which was clearly explained when he was employed is documented and clearly displayed around the building). Didn’t stop him taking a PG. He just did it to annoy me and waste my time. If you were in business you would know how hard it is to dismiss somebody even when you are clearly entitled to.
By the way I agree with it being hard to get rid of somebody so as to protect the employee from bad bosses and good process should be followed and the person should be given very chance to improve, but where they clearly a bad egg, you shouldnt gave to live in fear of a PG ( there is no time limit on PG’s, a bad egg can just say one day I need more money and accuse you).
I know of many businesses who now carry $5k of free cash to settle the next law suit, it is common knowledge you just say PG and the employer will pay $5 k to settle because it costs more than that to defend and costs are not awarded when you win.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Maggie, the legislation does not give the employer carte blanche to act without responsibility or accountability. It applies only where there is a 90 day trial period to which both parties must agree. Both parties are bound by the good-faith provisions except where expressly excluded. An employer is bound, if asked at the time of dismissal, to respond. The law is strictly construed against the employer as was clearly the case in Stokes Valley.
You obviously have a jaundiced approach to employers. You appear to colour all employers by reference to the bad experiences that you have had. I have also had bad experiences with employers and, where appropriate, do not mind if a freight train is aimed at them (figuratively).
I have also had experience with bad employees and I know the stress and cost, in terms of time and money and productivity, that is necessarily involved in dealing with them.
As an employer, I have first-hand experience of employing staff who have not worked out but where that fact has not beome known until months into the employment. It is a risk when any staff member is taken on and the 90 day rule encourages employers to take that risk.
It may be surprising to you but most employers value staff and regard them as an integral part of their business. They do not want to be turning over staff on a whim. Your problem seems to me that you want to regulate for the lowest common denominator.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
There is just no factual evidence that this 90 day law is bad. I expect some small portion of employers will be bad employers, just like some small portion of employees will be bad employees, and so by now I would have thought there might be some small number of genuine horror stories. Where are they?
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
“The 90-day rule doesn’t greatly reduce your chances of getting a “loser”.
Maggie what does disingenuous mean? Clearly badmac didn’t say that at all, he said it reduced his risk of being stuck with a loser.
What’s wrong with that? Why should employers be forced to be stuck with a loser? Why?
As for your argument you can prevent such through good recruitment, clearly you haven’t been round many jobs, as an employee. You’ve clearly been with one or two employers or in only one industry like a union, because otherwise you’d know that’s not true.
I’ve worked for small and very large companies, all have them have people who slipped through the net, no matter how tight it was and I’ve worked for some of the largest in the country.
I come back to the question: Why should employers be forced to be stuck with a loser? Why?
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
badmac, there is a 90-day limit on personal grievances, been in the legislation for years.
If the dismissal is kosher, you should have nothing to fear from a PG. most hearings only take half a day. If you are confident of your position then there is nothing to worry about.
reid, I have had many jobs, both fulltime and permanent, part-time and casual and on contract. I’ve worked for a number of different employers from big organisations to tiny ones. and also run my own business.
The answer to your question is simple: No employer is forced to be stuck with a poor performer. Haven’t you ever heard of dismissal?
You just want dismissals to be easy, with no comeback even if the employer gets it wrong. Why does personal accountability mean nothing to you?
“Power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages” – Stanley Baldwin
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Nookin, don’t make assumptions about me. If you want to know my attitude to something, just ask rather than making things up and getting them wrong.
I have dealt with a large number of employers over the years, but in huge organisations down to small operations. Most were decent people trying hard to get things right. Some were bastards and treated their workers like shit.
Of course employing people can be stressful, so can disciplining them. This can be equally distressing for an employee.
All the more reason to have a set of rules. The rules aren’t hard to follow and there are plenty of places an employer can go for representation or advice. An employer who doesn’t know the rules, doesn’t seek assistance and just puts his head down and charges into a dismissal should be kept accountable for the consequences. I thought the right believed in personal responsibility?
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“All the more reason to have a set of rules. The rules aren’t hard to follow and there are plenty of places an employer can go for representation or advice. An employer who doesn’t know the rules, doesn’t seek assistance and just puts his head down and charges into a dismissal should be kept accountable for the consequences. I thought the right believed in personal responsibility?”
Maggie. You sound just like the right person for the job when Anne finally realises it’s time to sack the teachers.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
That would be excellent.
It doesn’t.
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Johnboy, no thanks. I might end up with types like you and reid in my class.
” Totally unteachable. Unable to think rationally. Inclined to be smartarse to try to impress the others. Disruptive and lacking in personal hygiene. Failed.”
Vote:November 13th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
“An employer who doesn’t know the rules, doesn’t seek assistance and just puts his head down and charges into a dismissal should be kept accountable for the consequences”
So he should seek assistance when he wants to get rid of somebody who is fucking up his business?
That is where the law is wrong, I have a position available, this is the amount of money I am prepared to pay for that position, these are the hours of work..that is all that should be covered by the law.
Vote:If a person is not performing or is a disruptive element then I should be able to sack him or her immediately, not jump through endless hoops and a legal minefield.
November 13th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Maggie once again you are dead wrong. Go and reread the legislation that you quote or speak to an employer who has been through the ringer ( since you clearly do not speak from experience ). There is NO expiry on PG’s. Ask an employment lawyer if you can’t figure it out. I had to spend money getting them to tell me.
And yes if you follow good process And cross all the t’s then you are pretty safe problem is it cost so much time and money (normally around $10k to win, with no awarding of costs) it’s easier to write out the cheque and get on with running he business.
Vote:November 14th, 2010 at 1:03 am
Read the legislation yourself, badmac. Read section 114 (1) which states:
“Every employee who wishes to raise a personal grievance must……raise the grievance with his or her employer within 90 days beginning with the date on which the action alleged to amount to the personal grievance occurred……”
The Employment Relations Authority may consider a PG outside that period, but only under exceptional circumstances which are spelled out in the law.
If any lawyer told you different he was either badly misinformed or you didn’t understand what you were hearing, or he was pulling a swift one over you to get your business.
A law which would allow anyone to file a PG years after they were fired would be ridiculous.
Vote:November 14th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Now reread what you quoted and think about what it says. Take off your “the law is clear glasses” and read it from the perspective of what else it might say given a different interpretation of the words, timings, events, sentence structures and intentions.
The paragraph is open to reinterpretation and has been applied differently to how you or I might think it s written (by the way I agree totally with your interpretation, but was proven wrong).
Vote:November 14th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Oh and by the way you were to selective when you copied the clause. I know the rest of the clause didn’t support your position, but it was disingenuous of you to leave it out trying to make it seem like you were on the high ground. I have added it for your benefit, please use it when considering the interpritations BEING USED TODAY by ex employees and their lawyers to extort money from employers.
114 Raising personal grievance
Vote:(1) Every employee who wishes to raise a personal grievance must, subject to subsections (3) and (4), raise the grievance with his or her employer within the period of 90 days beginning with the date on which the action alleged to amount to a personal grievance occurred or came to the notice of the employee, whichever is the later, unless the employer consents to the personal grievance being raised after the expiration of that period.
November 14th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
badmac, you are dreaming. There is nothing in the whole clause than can be “reinterpreted”, it says what it says.
You must raise the grievance within 90 days. If you don’t the employer doesn’t have to consider it. That’s a time limit. QED
FFS be a man. Be honest enough to admit you got it wrong. That way I might have some respect for you.
Its no biggie, just an error. Or are you incapable of error?
Vote:November 14th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Its a law written by you lefties that can do no wrong.
Let me underline it and see if you can see the problem.
114 Raising personal grievance
————– came to the notice of the employee ———————————
That HAS been interpreted to mean, when you think/remember/dream of it, you have 90 days to make the complaint. Not when the event happened!!!!!!!!!, BUT when you became aware that it was “potential lucrative for you to remember it” as such it has NO limitation, the 90 days only applies for how long you have to complain after you became aware. Such as 20 years later “Oh I didn’t know my boss from 20 years ago couldn’t do that, I guess I can take a PG as I have just become aware”.
Vote:November 14th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I see. So 20 years later you suddenly think: “Gee, I must have been fired in 1990, I thought I had dreamed it, but maybe it was really true…..it didn’t come to my notice when the boss said ”Ýou’re fired” because I wasn’t really listening. It didn’t come to my notice when I never went back to work there, I thought I’d just forgotten the address…….”
Don’t be idiotic. Just admit you got it wrong and we can move on.
Start with: ”Maggie, you are right……..” and carry on from there.
Vote:November 14th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
You are a complete idiot, just admit you don’ t know what the f**k you are talking about. I know because it cost me $5,000 to settle out of court 7 months after i fired somebody for being under the influence of illegal drugs, not once, not twice, not even 3 times but everyday for 4 weeks. I sent him home, paid for councilling and even involved his parents. Then he turned up 2.5 days late smashed and I marched him out. He later accused me of constructive dismissal and took a pg via some dick head auckland lawyer who worked on a percentage of any money gained basis. My lawyer told me it would cat between $10 and $20 k to defend and I would certainly win. I settled and moved on.
This employee was taken on under the 90 day rule and was a model employee for 90 days. Then for the next 4 months he was absent more than he was in attendance. It went down hill when I finally started docking his pay (I gave him over 20 paid sick days even though he was entitled to none until 6 months).
So Maggie, I accept your appology for your comments. I undertand that you don’t know what you are talking about (again) I am now moving on as once again like a pig in shit you don’t know when to stop.
Vote:November 14th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Now I understand. You are a bitter human being incapable of ever admitting you were wrong.
I do apologise, I am genuinely sorry you are such a embittered individual. Hopefully one day you will get over it and be able to move on.
Vote: