Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘90 day trial period’

This isn’t fair

Posted by Darien Fenton on April 5th, 2011

In my in-box today, more stories about abuses of the 90 day no rights law.

I’m sharing one of them, as hopefully, it might stimulate some discussion about the realities of what the government has imposed on ordinary NZ workers. I’m hoping that the Kiwi values of fairness and justice might activate some real concern about what is being unleashed on New Zealand’s workforce.

James (not his real name) was previously working on a 6 month job scheme. He had been there 5 ½ months when Work and Income found him a full time job. The first afternoon at his work he had an accident – he squashed his finger between a log and a concrete wall, resulting in two breaks. He nearly lost his finger, but surgeons managed to save it.

James was given a medical certificate for one week and there was a verbal agreement with his employer that he could go on light duties until the injury was healed. James was told he would be trained for the retail side of work as long as he got a medical certificate.

James’ GP gave him a medical certificate for 6 weeks light duties. When he handed in this certificate to his employer, he was told “sorry – we need someone in the mill,” and he was laid off.

His letter of dismissal says that :

“As you are unavailable to resume full duties….. and are in your three month trial period, I am unable to hold your position for that lenght of time due to production demands in the factory.”

Next day, the job that James could have done was advertised in the newspaper.

Funny thing : James didn’t sign any contract agreeing to a 90 day trial period. Yes, there’s a legal argument about James’ situation. He could pursue it legally, if he can gather the resources and legal costs involved.

But the question is how does he feed his family until he finds other work?

James is highly motivated to find work in his community where unemployment is high. He’s not unreasonable. In fact, he was really pleased to get off a work scheme and into a genuine job.

But his employer exposed him to injury on his first day of work and James is paying the price.

Bottom line, the 90 day no rights period gives his employer an out and unless James is determined, unless James can jump through legal hoops, unless James can convince Work and Income and ACC that his case is legitimate, he and his family will bear the cost.

This isn’t fair.

Tags: 90 day trial period
Filed under: 90 day trial period, Health and Safety, workers rights

26 Comments

Job Survivor Island

Posted by Darien Fenton on January 12th, 2011

According to Labour Department research, one in five workers could be fired under the government’s extension to its 90 day no rights law, due to commence on 1 April. So, the CTU has set up Job Survivor Island, where you can choose which one of five workers should be fired and sent from the island. But, they warn, don’t think about it too hard because you don’t actually need a reason to sack them thanks to the government’s new employment law. However, the site does give an alternative to taking the low road and I hope lots of employers read and think about these options.

Not looking good for State Sector workers either, with the government insisting that this “voluntary” law be imposed in every State Sector agreement.

So much for the promises of Minister Wilkinson.

Tags: 90 day trial period
Filed under: 90 day trial period, union

77 Comments

The H word

Posted by Darien Fenton on October 20th, 2010

Today is an important day for wage and salary earners in New Zealand as they come out in rallies across the country protesting against the government’s determination to drive through unnecessary and unfair changes to industrial and holiday laws.

Update : By lunchtime today, 15,000 workers had attended rallies across NZ in the biggest protests against a government’s attacks on workers rights in more than a decade. Thousands more are expected to come out during the afternoon.

But while we’re waiting for reports on their action, here’s an ironical story (or some might use the word we are not allowed to use in parliament, the “h” word) about government members on the Select Committee in charge of the bills that workers are protesting about today.

Yesterday, National MP Tau Henare was publicly refusing to apologise for calling a teenage select committee submitter “a liar”, after he attacked James Sleep, 18, in his submission to the Transport & Industrial Relations Select Committee on the 90 day no rights bill.

James didn’t lie. I know, because I was there. He got one detail in his oral and written submissions a little bit mixed up. All Tau had to do was clarify, but instead, he called James a liar, and a bullshitter. And he’s gone further in the media saying :

Why would I apologise for a little turkey who got found out lying? He was reading out a submission and I was following it and in two parts … it was a completely different story.

He’ll get over it and if he doesn’t, well, then, too bad … He’ll learn from his experience.”

But then there is the NDU member, who had her first ever written submission to the committee sent back to her because, according to the Government members on the Select Committee, she made an “offensive comment”, which was :

Can we put John Key on a 90 day trial and sack him after the 89th day?

What? It sounds like an absolutely fair point to me – whereas Tau Henare has used his power as a government member of a Select Committee to harass a young person who had the gumption to show up and make a submission.

It’ s probably lucky the NDU member ddidn’t have to front the committee, because goodness only knows what would have happened to her.

Tags: 90 day trial period
Filed under: 90 day trial period, Holidays, select committee, workers rights, youth

27 Comments

Submission from AFFCO/Talley’s

Posted by Darien Fenton on October 6th, 2010

Today was the final day hearing submissions on the Employment Relations and Holidays Bills. And it ended with the most extreme submission received from employers – good old Talley’s – now AFFCO -TGL. That’s Talley’s, who locked out workers for six weeks at Open Country Cheese recently and who defied Employment Court orders. That’s Talley’s, who in the 1990’s was of the only employers (or perhaps the only) who had a ruling saying their contract was harsh and oppressive – and that was under the Employment Contracts Act! That’s Talley’s, whose employment relations views haven’t come into the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

I think this video from the SFWU website sums it up pretty well .

Tags: 90 day trial period, Holidays Act
Filed under: 90 day trial period, Employers, humour, workers rights, workforce

13 Comments

I knew Kiwis believed in fairness

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 19th, 2010

A UMR survey released today by the CTU shows that 80 per cent of New Zealanders oppose the Government’s planned changes to dismissal law. Previous polls had asked the question about whether respondents supported a 90 day trial and unsurprisingly, the majority said yes – because after all these were already allowed under previous law.

But the government’s proposed changes in the Employment Relations Bill (No. 2) remove the right of all workers to be told why they have been sacked and to challenge that reason (among other things). As the Human Rights Commission told the Select Committee last Thursday :

It is unusual for Parliament to take away rights, particularly such a fundamental right as the right of access to a hearing. Denial of redress in this manner in something as basic as employment has profound human rights implications.

The UMR Research telephone survey of a nationally representative sample of 750 New Zealanders asked the following question:

“Do you think that all employees should have the right to appeal if they think they have been unfairly dismissed, even if their dismissal was during the first 90 days of their employment?

The response was:

Yes 80%

No 18%

Unsure 2%

Submissions have already begun on this Bill and will continue day and night over the next few weeks to allow the large number of submitters to be heard. Even then, thousands of what the government calls “form” submissions and those who have gone to the trouble to add comments will be ignored.

I agree with the CTU that the government needs to rethink this policy. People from across the spectrum of incomes, ages, regions and occupations strongly oppose what the Government is doing and that’s not surprising. This law offends against the basic Kiwi value of fairness and access to justice.

ACT rolled the Minister of Labour’s recommendation that the 90 day no rights trial period be limited to workplaces of 50 or less and won an extension of it to all workplaces. Surely, now ACT is so discredited, the government can afford to be brave enough to revisit this policy and do the right thing by Kiwis?

Tags: 90 day trial period
Filed under: 90 day trial period, act party, poll, select committee, workers rights

37 Comments

Have your say at Select Committee – just kidding!

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 27th, 2010

The most significant changes to workers’ rights in two decades are coming our way via the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Holidays Amendment Bill, which had their first readings in parliament in the last few days.

So, you would think that the government would want New Zealanders (both for and against) to have their say.

Not so, it seems.

The two bills have been referred to the Transport & Industrial Relations Select Committee, who had, according to the Chair David Bennett, decided “informally” to call for submissions, even prior to the conclusion of the first readings in parliament.

(Disclosure : I am a member of this Select Committee, where Labour and the Greens are in the minority, so I know what really happened, but I can’t say so publicly).

The timeframe for the submissions for these two bills is at best three weeks, with closing dates on the 13 September and 17 September respectively.

I would have thought the government would be keen to ensure all of support they claim to have had around the 90 day fire at will extension, the sickies get-to-the-doctor-or-else provision and the selling of holidays were able0 to be presented at Select Committee.

Or should I be more cynical? Is the short timeframe really designed to make sure that unions and workers have as little time as possible to have their say?

If the government really believes there is support for these changes, they would have given more time for submissions.

But then there’s ACT calling the shots and National meekly following on behind. I forgot that Minister Kate Wilkinson got rolled at Cabinet (again) over her recommendations.

Tags: 90 day trial period
Filed under: 90 day trial period, Holidays, act party, democracy, labour, legislation, sick leave, workers rights, workforce

9 Comments

Heather (no not that one) wins her case

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 24th, 2010

The first 90 day trial period case has been heard in the Employment Court, which has found that young pharmacy worker, Heather Smith was unjustifiably dismissed by her employer (due to a failure to comply with the contracting requirements of the Employment Relations Act), and the employer failed to treat her in good faith or to comply with her employment agreement.

The Employment Court says this gives Heather several grounds for compensation for the appalling way she was treated.

However, the President of the CTU, Helen Kelly warns that :

“This law was rushed through Parliament without a proper select committee process and therefore has to some extent failed to achieve what the Government set out to do, creating a high risk for employers that have already sacked workers unfairly under the scheme. The Government intended to allow the reckless dismissal of workers without reasons and without giving reasons. What the Court has found is that the Good Faith requirements prevail and while an employer still may not have to have reasons, where they do, and where they are considering dismissing someone – they will need to tell them.”

“Heather’s employers relied on the law to completely indemnify them from any standards of decent employment practice. They have been found to not only have breached good faith requirements but even the terms of the employment agreement they entered into her with.”

“The disgraceful thing is that the policy intention of the Government is to remove from Heather and every other worker employed on a 90 day agreement the right to take a case against unfair dismissal.”

“While this decision is a real victory for Heather and justifies our decision to stick by workers like her, the Court decision still makes it clear that where employers get it right, and form and perform contracts correctly, this new law will still enable dismissals as unfair as Heather’s to go unchallenged.”

Pleased for Heather, but not pleased about all of the other workers who will be unfairly dismissed under the government’s plan to extend the 90 day trial to all workplaces.

Mind you, the other Heather (Roy) might be out on her ear, according to TVNZ news tonight.

Tags: 90 day trial period
Filed under: Employers, workers rights, workforce, youth

22 Comments

Is this the poster boy for good employers?

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 23rd, 2010

Saturday’s Herald had a feature on the biggest shake-up of employment laws in 20 years and gave an example of a Fijian carpenter, Basa Jal, who apparently owes his job and his New Zealand residence to the current 90-day trial period law.

To the rescue came Sean Robertson-Welsh, who owns New Zealand’s biggest fencing supplies company, Effective Fencing in Penrose, who agreed to give Mr Jal a job under the 90-day trial law, and support his application for a work permit. Mr Robertson-Welsh said he wouldn’t have taken on Mr Jal without the 90 day trial period.

So far, good story for those who claim the 90 day trial period is providing jobs for those on the “margins”.

But then, this.

Mr Robertson-Welsh, an English immigrant who bought the company in 2008 after running a similar business in Britain for 15 years, is a bitter opponent of the current employment laws allowing sacked workers to seek compensation for unjustified dismissal.

“It’s so bloody archaic here. I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said. “I’ve been in the Employment Court seven times in three years. In Britain I was in business 25 years and never went to the Employment Court once, which shows you the culture.”

What? Is he serious? In the Employment Court seven times in three years! That’s got to be a record for any employer, let alone one that employs less than 20 people. It’s hard work for a worker to get a case to the Employment Court and this suggests to me that this employer has some real problems in his employment practices.

I also wonder whether he thought some of the other laws in the UK were “archaic”, such as working time regulation, meals and rest breaks, and minimum redundancy entitlements – which New Zealand either doesn’t have or is in the process of wrecking.

But hardly a poster boy for good employers.

Tags: 90 day trial period
Filed under: Employers, union, workers rights, workforce

54 Comments