Dim-Post on *that* $168k cake story

Written By: - Date published: 12:07 pm, March 3rd, 2015 - 80 comments
Categories: blogs, business, employment, workers' rights - Tags: , , , , ,

I was wondering why there’s been so much media about the $168,000 rude cake on Facebook HRT finding, and then I read the Tribunal decision which you can find here. It is very long, and amazing in a way that can’t really be summed up in a newspaper article.

…

All of National’s pro-employer labour market reforms are justified on the basis that employers won’t abuse them because there’s no financial incentive for them to do so. Yet here we have a detailed account of a financial institution that seems way more interested in bullying their staff and destroying people’s lives than making money or ‘maximizing shareholder value’ and they use National’s reforms to do so.

The full post is well worth a read – a terrifying example of why we need stronger employment protections, not fewer.

80 comments on “Dim-Post on *that* $168k cake story ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Hateatea 1
    3 March 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Wow, just, WOW!!

    I suspected that there was much more to the story than the superficiality of the headline and brief news reports but really, not one but several senior managers did that!

    Having supported some people through Employment Tribunal hearings and another through another industry tribunal I have seen first hand how stressful and emotionally draining it can be. One can only hope that HR and CEO’s everywhere heed the warning that this judgement represents, however, because I don’t want to shorten my life, I won’t hold my breath.

    BTW, thanks for the link to the report. It was well worth the time it took to read.

    • aerobubble 1.1
      3 March 2015 at 1:42 pm

      Wherever there is a powe imbalance bully can occur. Take the recent worksafe charge against msd. You cant tell me that bullying by msd wont be a mitigating feature of any investigation.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1
        3 March 2015 at 2:04 pm

        The laying of charges is just a standard procedure when someone dies in a ‘work related’ incident.

        Not providing security staff has been slow coming, and they have been negligent because they baulked at the costs.

        The banks were the same with armed robberies, as they didnt want screens and bullet proof glass. My local library in Auckland has security guard, as the staff wouldnt have been comfortable with aggressive kids after school closes. They were way ahead of the Winz office up the road.

        The predecessor of Winz , in the 1970s, was more secure with a office area, counter and a public waiting area. They changed that when they wanted a totally open office plan which wasnt suitable for the type of business they do.

        • aerobubble 1.1.1.1
          12 March 2015 at 11:28 am

          Employers have duties of care not only to employees but to those engaging them. Who protects winz clients from aggressive staff, or worse, staff that leave fifty year olds living in their car over a southland winter. Work place safety should not be limited to employer employee, well usually it isnt, but govt on govt investigating have politic limits.

      • Chris 1.1.2
        4 March 2015 at 9:36 pm

        Yes, and it doesn’t stop there. Many so-called ‘respectable’ NGOs that are household names in New Zealand adopt the very same corporate bullying behaviour towards its employees every day of the week.

  2. Atiawa 2
    3 March 2015 at 1:14 pm

    There is only one campaign that the trade union movement should be promoting and that is for a return to compulsory unionism.
    All of the literature and statistics point to growing inequality when working people have their rights to bargain collectively removed or diluted by law changes favouring the employer class.
    I tire of hearing people moan about increases in their rates bill for example, yet they accept, without a word of public dissent that they haven’t had a pay increase in two years or more.
    Belonging to a union is as important as needing a licence to drive on our roads or the requirement to wear a crash helmet riding a motorcycle.
    There are many things in life that are compulsory.
    Having a collective voice in the workplace ranks up there with the more important necessities of life.

    • Macro 2.1
      3 March 2015 at 4:14 pm

      hear! hear!

    • Tracey 2.2
      3 March 2015 at 6:19 pm

      rock ON!

    • TheContrarian 2.3
      3 March 2015 at 6:45 pm

      Compulsory Unionism is contrary to the NZ Bill of Rights

      • te reo putake 2.3.1
        3 March 2015 at 7:35 pm

        So are a lot of things. If Parliament passes a law that is ‘contrary to the bill of rights’ guess which one wins.

        • TheContrarian 2.3.1.1
          3 March 2015 at 8:01 pm

          Compulsory Unionism is not just a violation of the NZ Bill of Rights but also article 20 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights – namely:

          (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

          • te reo putake 2.3.1.1.1
            3 March 2015 at 8:03 pm

            Again, TC, who do you think wins if Parliament passes a law contrary to either the BORA or the UNUDHR?

            • TheContrarian 2.3.1.1.1.1
              3 March 2015 at 8:10 pm

              It is irrelevant who “wins”. The NZ Bill of Right and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be upheld. One of these provisions is “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” which compulsory unionism clearly violates. You can’t just pick and chose and parliament should adhere to all of them and when they don’t we should protest.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                3 March 2015 at 8:17 pm

                Yes, you can: the government you support does it all the time. Even the NZ Law Society complained to the UN about it.

                • TheContrarian …
                  3 March 2015 at 8:22 pm

                  Not for the first time I have had to tell you I don’t and didn’t vote National so yeah, stop your bullshit. Do you knowingly lie or just forget that multiple times I have made this clear to you?

                  Secondly you just proved my point – you can’t pick and chose and when governments do organisations like the Law Society complain about it. Same goes with compulsory unionism. The UN Declaration of Human Rights are (or at least should be) immutable.

                  And thirdly, quit your fucking lying with this government you support shit. The Contrarian is a Green voter.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    3 March 2015 at 8:26 pm

                    Please accept my shallowest and least sincere lip service to contrition.

                  • Anne …
                    3 March 2015 at 8:40 pm

                    Can attest to TC saying he’s a Green voter… I think he/she also expressed quite strong approval of Andrew Little a couple of months back.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      3 March 2015 at 8:42 pm

                      I could swing from Greens to Little quite easily if his performance continues to be as strong as it has been

              • felix …
                3 March 2015 at 8:26 pm

                Yeah but I think trp is saying that parliament already passes laws that conflict with both of those with monotonous regularity, so on its own that doesn’t make it an outlandish suggestion.

                • TheContrarian …
                  3 March 2015 at 8:37 pm

                  And people quite rightly call them out on it. As they should. The UN Dec. on HR should be sacrosanct and that includes freedom of speech, rights to vote and freedom of association.

              • McFlock …
                3 March 2015 at 9:46 pm

                actually, what you can do is simpy leave the choice so stark that only a moron would bother to opt-out.

                Or you can simply leave it that independent contracts cannot offer equivalent or better terms than collective agreements.

                Bear in mind that the tories had to specifically change the BORA to throttle students’ associations, it had nothing to do with the UDHR.

            • TheContrarian 2.3.1.1.1.2
              3 March 2015 at 8:13 pm

              I have no problem with unions whatsoever, and have been a part of them from time to time, but nonetheless they cannot be compulsory.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                3 March 2015 at 8:19 pm

                Yes, they can be.

                It just takes Parliament to pass the necessary legislation. I don’t recall your implacable opposition to the removal of the right to collective bargaining, nor the disenfranchisement of inmates.

                These human rights are negotiable, that human right is inviolable.

                Hypocrite.

                • TheContrarian …
                  3 March 2015 at 8:24 pm

                  I support collective bargaining and believe prisoners should be able to vote.

                  You were saying?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    3 March 2015 at 8:27 pm

                    That I didn’t notice your implacable opposition to them, despite your lip service to them at this time.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      3 March 2015 at 8:38 pm

                      You seem to miss my frequent comments about being a green voter with surprisingly regularity so it isn’t too surprising.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      3 March 2015 at 8:40 pm

                      Well we can probably chalk that up to inattention and prejudice. On my part.

                      Must do better blah blah etc etc.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.2
        3 March 2015 at 7:59 pm

        No, it isn’t.

        It’s shorthand for the horrible inhuman suffering that would be inflicted on employers if they were required to bargain in good faith, rather than treating their employees piecemeal.

        I’m not convinced though. I think that rather than force employees to fight for their rights, that duty should fall to a special new division of the employment court, with baseball bats.

        It’s clear that any fine imposed on Talleys, for example, will simply be treated as a retroactive license to offend: ie: no deterrent effect at all. Baseball bats wielded by trained, impartial officers of the employment court would be far more effective.

        That’s just my completely reasonable good faith bargaining position though, not a bottom line.

  3. ghostwhowalksnz 3
    3 March 2015 at 1:17 pm

    Yes, its quite startling that after getting another job, they blacklisted the company she worked for ( in the fiance field) and threatened them with bankruptcy unless they fired her.

    It sounds like the medieval catholic church down there

  4. Draco T Bastard 4
    3 March 2015 at 2:30 pm

    It depicts a culture of senior managers in an organisation who behave like toxic sociopaths and pour huge amounts of energy into settling petty vindictive scores

    Well, it’s pretty much a known fact that the majority of business people happen to be socio/psychopathic. This is why we shouldn’t be listening to them about the direction of our society.

    All of National’s pro-employer labour market reforms are justified on the basis that employers won’t abuse them because there’s no financial incentive for them to do so.

    ‘Employers’ throughout history have been abusing their workers be they ’employees’ or outright slaves. This is why we had protections in law for workers including compulsory unionisation. Now that those laws are being repealed we’re seeing an increase of that abuse (the laws didn’t actually stop it).

    • Colonial Rawshark 4.1
      3 March 2015 at 4:03 pm

      Well, it’s pretty much a known fact that the majority of business people happen to be socio/psychopathic. This is why we shouldn’t be listening to them about the direction of our society.

      Nah, Joe the self employed plumber, James the contract printer and Jacqui the consultant mechanic are not likely to be socio/psychopathic.

      However when you start talking about the upper echelons of the corporate world, you may be right. But that’s not “most” business people.

    • TheContrarian 4.2
      3 March 2015 at 6:47 pm

      What utter bullshit, Draco. The majority of business people? Firstly what defines “business people”? Secondly, a majority? What crap

  5. esoteric pineapples 5
    3 March 2015 at 2:34 pm

    I expect there will be a law change soon so that no employer in future could ever lose such a case

  6. BLiP 6
    3 March 2015 at 3:51 pm

    ‘

    Un-fucking-believable!! For those unwilling to wade through the Tribunal decision, the headnote provides a good summary . . .

    . . . Ms Hammond uploaded to her Facebook page a picture of a cake made by her for a private dinner party held for a close friend of hers. Both Ms Hammond and her friend had recently resigned from Credit Union Baywide trading as NZCU Baywide (NZCU Baywide). The party was attended by ten close personal friends, five of whom were current employees of NZCU Baywide.
    What would otherwise have been an unexceptional set of circumstances was transformed by two factors. First, the top of the cake had been iced with the words “NZCU FUCK YOU” while the side of the cake bore the word “CUNT”. The privacy setting on Ms Hammond’s Facebook page meant only those accepted by her as “friends” had access to the photograph. Second, on NZCU Baywide gaining access to the Facebook page a screenshot of the cake was taken. That screenshot was then distributed by NZCU Baywide to multiple employment agencies in the Hawke’s Bay area by email which, along with contemporaneous phone calls from NZCU Baywide, warned against employing Ms Hammond. At the same time an internal email was sent by the Chief Executive Officer of NZCU Baywide to staff disclosing information about the circumstances in which Ms Hammond had earlier resigned from NZCU Baywide. NZCU Baywide also placed severe pressure on her new employer to terminate her (Ms Hammond’s) employment . . .

    . . . IMHO, there is no way that $168,000 is a sufficient penalty or deterrent for like-minded New Zealand employers and nor is it adequate recompense for the injury suffered.

    Is there now enough evidence to take further action against some of the principals at NZCU Baywide personally, starting with: Chief Executive Officer Gavin Earle, Lending Manager Julie Baxter, Chief Operating Officer Grant Porter, Human Resources Manager Louise Alexandra, and multi-branch manager Steven Forde, How those individuals managed to obtain senior positions at NZCU Baywide at all is bizarre. The fact that they are still employed at NZCU Baywide is sending the message to staff and customers that such behaviour at executive levels is acceptable to the Board.

    Consider also the role of Grow Human Resources headed up by Directors Murray Cowan and Dave Robb. Grow Human Resources has been NZCU Baywide’s human resources adviser for nine years and played a fundamental role in putting together the corporate leadership team. Director Murray Cowan also played a fundamental role in an attempt to eliminate the only NZCU Baywide executive to have shown any dignity throughout this whole sorry episode – Chief Financial Officer Peter McAuley. Oddly enough, as this case moved towards the hearings and it became clear where Mr McAuley stood on the matter, it would appear that the main instigators were closing ranks.

    In October 2013 Murray Cowan interviewed nine unnamed NZCU Baywide employees in the course of assessing the future performance of the organisation. Cowan alleges that some of the comments made to him about Mr McAuley were unfavourable with the result that Cowan made representations to CEO Gavin Earle with the result that in November 2013, by mutual agreement, Mr McAuley resigned from NZCU Baywide. Cowan pops up again in the story on 1 December 2014 as a witness for NZCU Baywide specifically to attack the character and credibility of Mr McAuley. The attempt to have Cowan’s opinion as to Mr McAuley’s veracity appears to have been a desperate half-cocked have-a-go legal ruse but failed.

    Grow Human Resources other director, Dave Robb, is described as the company’s ” . . . employee relations guru, acting as our encyclopedia of legislation and case law. He deals with all aspects of complex disci­plinary and performance management processes in a straightforward and practical way . . .” If that’s true, they why didn’t Robb inform NZCU Baywide that it behaviour was egregious and could easily end up like it has? In fact, given his alleged wonderfulness in dealing with complex disci­plinary and performance management processes in a straightforward and practical way, what the fuck was Robb doing actually participating in the pillory of the victim in this case? Did Robb really not know he was being offered up, free of charge, by NZCU Baywide executives to provide the exact steps the victim’s new employer could use to sack her?

    It just seems completely unjust that, to use Karen Hammonds term, cunts like Chief Executive Officer Gavin Earle, Lending Manager Julie Baxter, Chief Operating Officer Grant Porter, Human Resources Manager Louise Alexandra, and multi-branch manager Steven Forde or Grow Human Resources’ directors Murray Cowan and Dave Robb walk away from this unscathed. What about defamation or conspiracy to intentionally cause emotional harm or . . . I dunno . . . something.

    Of course, mighty and all respect to Karen Hammond herself for having: a – got through this and, b – exposing this corporate malfeasance for all to see. NZCU Baywide and, it would seem, Grow Human Resources worked together to ensure Karen was as near to broke as possible and had to take the case to the Human Rights Tribunal herself. She is an example to all workers and, in a just world, she would return to NZCU Baywide tomorrow as Chair of the Board of Directors specifically tasked by the member-owners to clear out the dead wood. In the same just world, those personally involved will now quickly find themselves unemployed and unable to find work due to their reputations being trashed – by their own hand – and having to face legal action without the funds for adequate representation.

    • Hateatea 6.1
      3 March 2015 at 4:28 pm

      Thank you for the additional insights, BLiP. As you say, the firm has been financially punished but the other culpable parties have, at least at first sight, not been punished at all.

      Through their actions, four people had to seek new employment, not just the complainant, three of whom had proven abilities and respect within their fields and one of whom was just starting out. As you say, $168,000 seems like a drop in the ocean for the harm caused.

      Perhaps, as the findings in total become more widely shared, the appropriate retribution will be visited on the remaining executives and the two partners in Grow Human Resources as well.

      • David H 6.1.1
        4 March 2015 at 5:51 pm

        It was, Damages of $38,350 were awarded for pecuniary loss, $15,543.10 for legal expenses and $16,177.78 for loss of benefit. A further award of damages of $98,000 was awarded for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

        No where near enough in my humble opinion.

        And then Taina Pora’s conviction is quashed. What a day.

        Oh And a Weasel rides a Woodpecker.

    • Tracey 6.2
      3 March 2015 at 6:24 pm

      And now we will be told this is just an aberration…

      • Sacha 6.2.1
        3 March 2015 at 7:50 pm

        Bad apples. etc. Rather than a reflection of everything that is so wrong with complacent NZ businesses and their small-minded managers.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.3
      3 March 2015 at 6:31 pm

      . . . IMHO, there is no way that $168,000 is a sufficient penalty or deterrent for like-minded New Zealand employers and nor is it adequate recompense for the injury suffered.

      The managers who carried out this vendetta, IMO, need to have an injunction on them preventing them being in a management or administration role for at least five years.

      • Sacha 6.3.1
        3 March 2015 at 7:52 pm

        Jail would do that. If only employment law didn’t assume all managers are angels and all employees should tolerate any amount of harmful behaviour while tugging their forelocks.

    • GregJ 6.4
      3 March 2015 at 7:55 pm

      I’m not surprised the HR (or as I call them “Hinderance Resources”) Manager was involved. Yet to meet one (in 15 years as a manager) that doesn’t make my job or life for my staff more difficult as they are too busy licking and then covering the arses of Senior Management. Wankers.

      • GregJ 6.4.1
        3 March 2015 at 7:59 pm

        Only surpassed by HR Consultants bought in to help fuck up your organisation by creating chaos and destroying morale. Should join the lawyers as first against the wall…

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.5
      3 March 2015 at 8:12 pm

      Fines will simply be treated as a retroactive license to offend.

      I’m in favour of far more personal consequences for these offenders. Is there a good reason why workplace inspectors can’t be trained in brutal and immediate physical retribution?

      Failing that, what about some jail time?

    • G P 6.6
      3 March 2015 at 9:01 pm

      ‘Grow Human Resources’ directors Murray Cowan and Dave Robb walk away from this unscathed. ‘

      No surprises there – I worked with Murray Cowan some years ago and he’s slippery all right.

      All this shit goes beyond being vindictive. I’m glad she was awarded compensation.

  7. TheBlackKitten 7
    3 March 2015 at 4:13 pm

    I have only got to point 27 but these two women come across as being exceptional at their roles, having plenty of experience in the industry and had the respect of their staff. It sounds like they fixed a lot of incompetence within the company and recognised the typical old boys network that is so prevalent in the NZ work culture that created it and was a wall to the company they worked for performing even better. Not at all unusual within corporates in NZ.
    As is typical in the corporate world, its not your merit or ability that matters but rather who you know and how many mates you have crawling around the board that that guarantees you a high paying job for life even if you are the biggest idiot in the company. Due to these two women challenging that culture (for the good of the company and staff) they were punished with the usual threats of legal action, dismissal and bogus made up performance issues.
    Nothing unusual to see here, not only is this a workers rights issue but it also reflects on the poor judgement of the owners/ shareholders of this company for allowing the typical ‘old boys network’ of incompetency to flourish.
    I also lay the blame with the idiots that own and allow this old boys network to rule over competency and ability in the company culture. And they all stand around with their hands scratching their arses wondering why they preform so poorly & so much goes wrong.

    • Tracey 7.1
      3 March 2015 at 6:25 pm

      TheBlackKitten! You ok??? we are in total agreement.

    • Murray Rawshark 7.2
      3 March 2015 at 7:43 pm

      The two women showed up the Gauleiterbund of provincial Newzild as totally incompetent. That was their only sin, but in the lower echelons of the NAct party and the upper echelons of the local Lions Club, it is the most deadly of all. It is this network of puffed up non entities that holds us all back. Ardent believers in FJK’s ashsprayshilism, they poison everything they touch. They are mediocrities, grey little men like Phil Goff, but slightly more right wing. A significant proportion of them are Mike Sabins. They are one of the secrets of Tory success, and these particular ones should have been hit with a bit more than a wet bus ticket.

    • sabine 7.3
      3 March 2015 at 8:06 pm

      omgosh, i agree with the black kitten.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.4
      3 March 2015 at 8:14 pm

      The Black Kitten provides yet more evidence that even a stopped clock is right twice a day 😈

  8. Huginn 8
    3 March 2015 at 7:44 pm

    NZCU Baywide’s Board of Directors need to answer to this.

    The Investors also need to ask the Directors:

    – NZCU’s COO was making good on his threats to destroy the business of Ms Hammond’s new employer in order to get her fired, knowing full well that that new employer was undergoing chemotherapy and was gravely ill. How do they stand on that?

    -Do they understand that the senior managers have brought the NZCU into disrepute? What are they doing about that?

    -How on earth did they let this happen on their watch? Do they feel that they may have an issue with poor governance?

    https://www.nzcubaywide.co.nz/about-nzcu-baywide/investor-information/

    • RedBaronCV 8.1
      3 March 2015 at 9:26 pm

      The place appears to be a credit union so that money just came out of the members pockets.
      The board looks like it includes a lawyer, does it have have questions to answer..

      Key management (4 people?) look like they have been paid just over $1m for the 2014 year

  9. AmaKiwi 9
    3 March 2015 at 8:52 pm

    I have just read the full post.

    These were horrendously incompetent managers. I expect they have been fired along with the executives who were supposed to be supervising them. This is a company that deserves to fail.

  10. adam 10
    3 March 2015 at 9:40 pm

    For the love of God. Having just read as much of the ruling as I can stomach. I think I’m going to be sick – No wait – yea that’s bile in my mouth.

    Look folks we have had the clock wound back by this TORY SCUM!

    All the rights we enjoyed at work are gone – bosses – now act like thugs and bullies – because that is the norm.

    Do yourself a favour – Down load the PDF from this link and organise.

    It is the only option – You are back in the good ‘ol days of wild wild west employment law.

    http://libcom.org/organise/workplace

  11. Wendigo Jane 11
    3 March 2015 at 9:42 pm

    Plenty of this sort also clogging the halls of the public sector in Wellington. They can be found clustering around various major public sector stuff-ups in recent memory but generally manage to shift blame and escape restructurings etc.

  12. Reddelusion 12
    3 March 2015 at 10:31 pm

    My experience with union leaders. (Not member) ideological muppets, bully’s including to their members, low IQ and their word mean shite. Belonging to a union is a path to looserville

    [Stephanie: this propaganda-fart is so kneejerk you haven’t even bothered trying to link it to the post you’re commenting on, or any other comments that have been made. Stay on topic or you’ll be assumed to be a troll and banned accordingly.]

    • te reo putake 12.1
      3 March 2015 at 10:59 pm

      My experience was that they were better negotiators than the boss, and better salespeople too. Given that they manage to convince hundreds of thousands of Kiwis to part with cold hard cash every week, and you can’t convince a single reader here to take anything you say seriously, I’d say they were a way more businesslike and professional than you, deluded.

    • adam 12.2
      3 March 2015 at 11:10 pm

      Reddelusion that’s just waffle from an ideologue.

      Your pitiful jeremiad – from a sad epigone.

      Stop, and read what happened – sorry your to busy proving you are fatuous, as well as engaging in calumny of unions.

    • crashcart 12.3
      4 March 2015 at 9:36 am

      I would urge you to re-read your own comment and then reassess your ability to comment on others IQ. I am no english whizz but damn your sentance structure made your post almost unreadable.

  13. gsays 13
    4 March 2015 at 7:57 am

    hi all,
    what beggars belief, is that this group of (i assume) intelligent, well renumerated executives, thought that they could get away with these actions.

    to get a young member of staff to hack a facebook account and she would not say anything.

    that they could forward the illegally gained photo to several recruitment agencies and all of them would be in agreement with nzcu baywide actions.

    that the follow up phone calls would not raise ire.
    nz is a small place and if ms hammond is experienced as indicated, she would have built relationships herself with the recruiters. let alone other whanau/friendship circles that would overlap.

    then for the ceo of nzcu baywide cirulating via internal email details of ms hammonds resignation.

    the arrogance or stupidity is astounding.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      4 March 2015 at 8:14 am

      My immediate suspicion was that they are that breed of Christian who think piety is a free pass.

    • DH 13.2
      4 March 2015 at 11:59 am

      They nearly did get away with it, which I think is the main message in this post.

      Ms Hammond had the tenacity and self-belief to take this to the privacy tribunal herself, without financial and legal help from anyone. Very few people would be in a position to do that, I have no doubt her situation has been repeated many times and the instigators have gotten away with it.

      It could also be said they may well yet get away with it. $168k in no way compensates her for even loss of earnings, she might have a victory but she’s not a winner there. She still doesn’t have a decent job and if the people responsible aren’t fired it’s their employer who has to pay the fine not them.

      Just curious. Is the $168k taxable or is that treated like a gift?

      • gsays 13.2.1
        4 March 2015 at 6:18 pm

        hi dh, i think what you say is true, that they thought they would get away with it!!

        kinda like a young teenager with no idea of others or tomorrow.
        a child caught with cake crumbs leading to their bedroom but still denying eating the gateaux.

        i know, i was one of those kids, once eating all the lollies i ‘found’ in the pantry (decorations intended for my little brothers birthday cake), and another time denying eating the condensed milk from the fridge, but being unable to explain the evidence of sticky fingerprints on the kitchen, hall and bedroom doorknobs.

        also ” She still doesn’t have a decent job and if the people responsible aren’t fired it’s their employer who has to pay the fine not them.”
        i am a client of the credit union and am exceedingly curious to know where the monies are going to come from.
        i accept,, indirectly the clients will pay but feel strongly the people who thought they would benefit from pursuing their vendetta should be liable from their own salaries.

  14. Hateatea 14
    4 March 2015 at 8:53 am

    It would appear that one of the manager’s in question has ‘walked the plank’. Did she jump or was she pushed? Maybe she is still there but the firm is no longer advertising the fact?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/66919202/underfire-manager-in-lewd-cake-case-disappears.html

  15. gsays 15
    4 March 2015 at 6:33 pm

    hi all its kinda crowd source time.
    i wish to send a letter to the baywide crew asking a few questions re the payment of fines and accountability issues.

    a few questions:
    how to word it without it falling into ‘thats an employment issue and its none of yr business…’
    to whom to address it.

    here is a rough draft, i welcome input from y’all.
    (I will use capitals etc in the proper one)
    dear so and so,
    i wish to seek reassurance that the members/clients of the credit union will not be contributing to the recent fine imposed by the employment tribunal following the ms hammond affair.
    i also humbly request an broad indication from you what consequence the people involved can expect. (not intimate details, as i accept following this confidentiality is to be upheld.
    i look forward to your response.
    my name etc.

    • te reo putake 15.1
      4 March 2015 at 6:42 pm

      Happy to have a go. But first up, the CU is paying for this, not the employees, so your first question is moot.

      The second question could be phrased:

      Dear ……

      As a member of the Credit Union I am dismayed at the outcome of the Hammond Privacy Tribunal case. Can you confirm that disciplinary proceeding are being considered for those staff who had managerial responsibility for this matter?

      • gsays 15.1.1
        4 March 2015 at 9:26 pm

        cheers trp,
        without being too much of a pedant.. what do you mean the cu is paying for this?
        by that i mean you often hear “the government or council should pay, not me.” there doesnt seem to be the discertnment that you/me are the government/council.

        i get that as a shareholder/client of cu then ultimately i will pay but i would like to see those sociopaths have monies docked from their wages first.

        • te reo putake 15.1.1.1
          4 March 2015 at 9:45 pm

          They’re employees of the Credit Union. They’re not personally financially liable for their errors, any more than you are at your work. Mistakes were made, but clearly, the fact that they went all the way to a tribunal hearing instead of settling suggests that they had authorisation from the top to defend their actions. Ultimately, you and your fellow depositors will pay for this. If it it had been a private firm, it would be the shareholders who lost out.

          • gsays 15.1.1.1.1
            4 March 2015 at 9:55 pm

            cool.
            grim, however i would like to have the boss tell me this.
            you know… planting seeds.
            cheers trp.

            • te reo putake 15.1.1.1.1.1
              4 March 2015 at 10:02 pm

              You might want to attend the AGM and ask a few pointed questions, too. It’s not just the HR manager who got this wrong, after all.

  16. Chaz 16
    7 March 2015 at 11:09 am

    Hi
    Serious question – I am not trying to be provocative.

    So I have read the full report and clearly the management at NZCU were/are a disgrace.. apart from McAuley who is the only one that comes out of it with his integrity intact.

    I cannot see anything in the report though that relates to employment reforms carried out by National. This story could just a easily have occurred in 2005 as 2015.

    The possible exception is the 90 day employment rule which is touched on twice.

    1. NZCU tried to get Tonge to remove Hammond under the 90 day rule.
    — But Tonge’s legal advice was that he could not do so and he declined to do so.
    — Hammond employment was ended by her, herself, after a withdrawl of business by NZCU.
    — Once again this withdrawal of business could have happened just as easily in 2005 as 2015.

    2. Edmondson says one of the reasons she was not honest about her reasons for leaving NZCU was because she was worried they might be vindictive about her and the 90 day rul at her new job would be used against her.
    –This possibly has some relevance but it is balanced by the fact that in her circumstances, in 2005, it is unlikely that Edmondson would have behaved any differently. As is stated in the report, “Hawkes Bay is a small town”, indeed New Zealand is a small town. It is more common than not that at an exit interview disgruntlement is not displayed. There is no upside and only downside to doing so.
    — So in this case while I admit the relevance I do not see the importance. The question is entirely peripheral.

    What I do get out of this is a feeling that NZ privacy legislation is working just as it should. The offending employer has been utterly humiliated and a signal example made. Both Hammond and Gooding have come out of it with their reputations restored and their competence affirmed. If I ran financial institution I’d have no hesitation in employing them at levels commensurate with their experience and I hope that is what now follows.

    But to repeat my question I am unable to see any direct links between what happened here and National’s legislation. As stated, to my eyes this story could just as easily have run in 2005 as 2015.