CTU proves the law is great
My 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?