Michael Woodhouse: a fool or a liar?

88 comments on “Michael Woodhouse: a fool or a liar? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   14 April 2015 at 12:11 pm

   Thanks Steph.

   And Congratulations to Maccas for also agreeing to end zero hour contracts. Only Burger King and Wendys to go.

   It is funny that multinational corporations with generally poor workplace practices are quicker at outlawing anti worker contractual provisions quicker than this Government …
   • Lanthanide 1.1

     14 April 2015 at 12:16 pm

     McDonald’s didn’t, and Unite are going to strike on Wednesday.

     McDonald’s agreed to give people 80% of their rostered hours, but the point is people on 0-hours contract routinely work significantly more than their rostered hours.

     If you’re rostered for 10 hours but work 30, then being guaranteed 8 hours in the future (and still working 30) doesn’t change anything.

     Restaurant Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut etc) agreed to 80% of hours worked, which is meaningful.
     • mickysavage 1.1.1

       14 April 2015 at 12:48 pm

       Thanks Lanth. Very tricky …
       • dukeofurl 1.1.1.1

         14 April 2015 at 1:32 pm

         A Zero Hours burger:

         Some mayo and a few strings of lettuce
   • Skinny 1.2

     14 April 2015 at 12:34 pm

     Mc Donalds are being tricky as per usual. Unite keep holding a blowtorch to their arse
     and is in my opinion the best Union in the Country. Pity they don’t expand out the cover other industries. They leave the trade unions for dead as they recruite activists from within.
     • dukeofurl 1.2.1

       14 April 2015 at 1:27 pm

       Isnt that a demarcation thing, from the days when the pantyhouse workers union didnt poach members from the socks and underwear union
       • Skinny 1.2.1.1

         14 April 2015 at 4:13 pm

         Demarcation lines?

         There are plenty of idiot Unions these days that poach workers into unions outside their sector (broad coverage approach) undermining the sector union and then negotiate a weaker CA. The bosses love it. It amazes me when someone says yeah my union is such & such, I think what the heck would they know about that industry compared to a more specialist union I could think of. Let’s not even go into the thinking of 2 of the largest unions around the introduction of the ECA.
   • infused 1.3

     14 April 2015 at 4:47 pm

     Burger King/McDs have been doing this since 2000 when I worked there. Why is this such a huge issue now
     • Lanthanide 1.3.1

       14 April 2015 at 6:17 pm

       Were you on a casual contract, or a 0-hours? They aren’t the same.

       One clear difference is that if you’re on a casual contract, every time you work, you have to get paid the holiday rate in addition to the hours worked, because you don’t accrue annual leave.
       • infused 1.3.1.1

         14 April 2015 at 11:36 pm

         Maybe it was. Too young to remember. I was never guaranteed hours though.
         • Lanthanide 1.3.1.1.1

           15 April 2015 at 9:36 am

           So it may have been a casual contract, which is fine.

           With 0-hours contract, you might be given say a 6 hour shift a week on an official roster, and then told that you might be needed on Friday and Saturday. When Friday and Saturday arrive, you wait for a phone call, but it never arrives.

           Or you’re given an official rostered shift, and then also told that you’d need to work on Thursday. Then on Thursday morning, you’re called and told that your shift is cancelled. But maybe you’ll get a shift tomorrow.

           Under a casual contract, the employee has full rights to decline any offered work. The key difference here is it means that you’re fully able to look for other employment. With a 0-hours contract, if you don’t come in when they expect you to come in (because you’ve got another job, or you had scheduled plans that made it impossible to attend work), they can write it up as an unexplained absence and start the process to dismiss you.
2. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 2

   14 April 2015 at 12:27 pm

   The Facebook page says there will be strikes in fast food restaurants other than in Auckland, i.e. in Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin and Palmerston North. Hope that FB page will supply more details.
3. vto 3

   14 April 2015 at 12:28 pm

   Biggest ups of the year so far to Andrew Little for calling out Woodhouse’s lies.
4. b waghorn 4

   14 April 2015 at 12:36 pm

   It wouldn’t really surprise me if woodenhead wasn’t just pure and simply thick ,national proved in northland that they don’t want thinkers they just want good little puppets.
   • Simple Simon 4.1

     14 April 2015 at 1:58 pm

     One does get that impression when ever Woodknucklenut is on TV, he does not look the brightest bulb in the House.
5. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 5

   14 April 2015 at 12:46 pm

   Michael Woodhouse: a fool or a liar?

   Both. And more. He has been known as a scoundrel since his schoolboy days.
   • left for deadshark 5.1

     14 April 2015 at 1:07 pm

     great description scoundrel.He is loathed by most of us down here,except for the moneyed few. Thankful for small mercies he’s not Heath minister.
     good post SR. 😉
   • whateva next? 5.2

     14 April 2015 at 1:30 pm

     Perfect successor for Key then.
     • peterlepaysan 5.2.1

       14 April 2015 at 7:39 pm

       Well they are both puppets.
   • Chris 5.3

     14 April 2015 at 4:10 pm

     That face suggests he’s seen the bottom of a few bottles, too. Certainly not the sharpest knife as a result…
6. dukeofurl 6

   14 April 2015 at 1:30 pm

   On camera, when hes asked for a statement he acts like hes the guy from the mailroom and hes just leaving the ministers office
7. NZJester 7

   14 April 2015 at 1:32 pm

   “Michael Woodhouse: a fool or a liar?”

   Or is he simply both.
   • Rob 7.1

     14 April 2015 at 10:12 pm

     He would appear to be quite clearly a liar
     As Andrew Little has shown
     As part of Steven Joyce’s National Govt he is probably
     also just a foot soldier following orders
     So I guess that makes him fairly dumb!
8. DH 8

   14 April 2015 at 1:57 pm

   “Under a 90-day trial your boss can fire you for getting injured on the job. Or calling in sick. Or joining the union. Or rebuffing sexual harassment. All things which it would be illegal for someone to fire you for in any other circumstances.”

   That’s not my understanding of it, can anyone clarify?

   My understanding is the 90day law just removed workers’ access to the employment court. That effectively makes it too near impossible for the average person to get any justice if they’re unfairly dismissed, they’d have to pursue a civil claim which is beyond the means of most people

   I didn’t think the actual laws on dismissal were changed and the above practices are still illegal. Or has there been new laws passed that I’ve missed?
   • Lanthanide 8.1

     14 April 2015 at 2:32 pm

     You’re correct, the 90-day bill provision removed the ‘unfair dismissal’ recourse for a personal grievance, but didn’t remove any of the other protected provisions for a personal grievance.
   • te reo putake 8.2

     14 April 2015 at 2:56 pm

     The 90 day rule actually does allow for dismissal in the above circumstances. It removes the right of workers to take personal grievances if they are fired in the 90 days. So, no PG, no mediation, no employment authority, no employment court, no court of appeal. No nothing.

     Because the employer does not have to give a reason for the dismissal, it’s virtually impossible to build a case any other way. Most cases that have been won that involved the 90 day law have been on technicalities or where there was proven abuse such as witnessed harassment.

     The intent and effect of the law is to allow workers to be fired without penalty. It’s working exactly as designed.
     • infused 8.2.1

       14 April 2015 at 4:46 pm

       Yes they do you tard. A process has to be followed. You can’t just say ‘you’re fired’.

       Jesus christ,
       • te reo putake 8.2.1.1

         14 April 2015 at 5:00 pm

         Actually, that’s exactly what it means. The process pretty much boils down to ‘you’re fired’. That’s the intent, and that’s how its working in practice. As I wrote, the few successful cases have been mainly on process failure, most often forgetting to get the employment agreement with the 90 day provision in it signed before work starts.

         Still, if you think there is a more substantial process to dismissing someone, feel free to spell it out.
         • Lanthanide 8.2.1.1.1

           14 April 2015 at 6:25 pm

           Employment lawyers advise that a proper process has to be followed. Presumably because they expect that sooner or later, the court will find a case where a proper process wasn’t followed and will find against the company.
           • te reo putake 8.2.1.1.1.1

             14 April 2015 at 6:31 pm

             Well, yeah. But so what? The point of the legislation is to allow unfair dismissals. That’s what it says on the lid and that’s what it delivers.

             Happy to ask the same question again; what’s the process?

             Edit: I forgot to mention that National changed the law so that procedural faults don’t have to be a decider in employment cases. Get that? Even if bosses get the sacking process wrong, that doesn’t mean they automatically lose the case.
             • infused …

               14 April 2015 at 11:28 pm

               Why would I explain it to you. How about you go hire some people and then come back to us. It seems it’s only tools like yourself that are not actually employing people that seem to be confused about the 90 day trial.
               • te reo putake …

                 15 April 2015 at 9:00 am

                 So tell us what the process is, genius. Let me guess … you haven’t got a clue?
                 • Lanthanide …

                   15 April 2015 at 9:40 am

                   A proper process would at a minimum include a notice/warning that performance was not up to expectations, with an indication of what those expectations were. Then a time-frame for improvement and an assessment of whether the necessary improvement has occurred.

                   Given that there is a 90 day limit here, and obviously the law makes it easier to fire someone, it doesn’t have to be a robust and exhaustive process. But it should be more than simply “sorry, you’re fired”.
                   • Tracey …

                     15 April 2015 at 10:13 am

                     can you give me the clause/s in the Act which refer to the proper process for dismissal under 90 day clauses?
                   • Lanthanide …

                     15 April 2015 at 10:34 am

                     Tracey, a large body of best-practice has built up around employment law from employment law cases. This is called “case law”.

                     The case law tells how to the law should be interpreted and applied in real life.

                     The employment lawyers are making this recommendation based on case law, not the act-as-written.

                     Lawyers, being cautious and conservative people, want to give the best advice to their clients to avoid costs and hassles.

                     It doesn’t mean that you *must* follow a proper process, merely the opinion of the lawyers that if you don’t, you may be open to a legal challenge. Eventually these cases will come through to the court and some precedents will be set and we’ll find out whether the lawyers were correct to be cautious or not.
                   • te reo putake …

                     15 April 2015 at 10:40 am

                     Cheers, Lanthanide. The process you outline is fair and is pretty much what should be expected under a probationary period arrangement as allowed in law now and also prior to the 90 day rule. However, under a 90 day trial, none of that fairness is needed.

                     Ironically, if a dinkum employer actually uses the process you outline and then dismisses someone just using the 90 day provision, they actually do expose themselves to the risk of a successful PG on technical grounds. That is, having begun a performance improvement regime, they cannot definitively rely on the 90 day provision alone as a reason for dismissal.

                     To put it another way, an employer would be best advised to take no risks, and certainly give no advice to an employee that if they improve, their job is safe, and certainly give no reason at all for the dismissal other than you are dismissed under the 90 day rule. Fair? No. Legal? Yes.

                     edit, just seen your reply to Tracey. You are right that case law will develop in time. However, the courts always look at the intent of parliament in helping to form a judgement.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     15 April 2015 at 10:49 am

                     @TRP: according to the employment lawyers that talked to us, the previous 90 day probation law amounted to no additional powers for the employer.

                     The gist of it was you could ‘slightly accelerate’ the standard process, but you must still follow a fair process during the probationary period.

                     For our company, 90 days isn’t long enough to weed out underperforming vs acceptable performing individuals. It is long enough to weed out completely incapable performers, and under the 90 day provision we can get rid of them, but the previous probationary standards would still require us to treat an incapable performer as merely an underperformer.
                   • tracey …

                     15 April 2015 at 10:58 am

                     Gee, thanks Lanth

                     Case Law you say. Well, well, well.
                   • tracey …

                     15 April 2015 at 11:11 am

                     S 103A Test of Justification

                     i.For the purposes of section 103(1) (a) and (b), the question of whether a dismissal or an action was justifiable must be determined, on an objective basis, by applying the test in subsection (2).
                     ii.The test is whether the employer’s actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred.”
             • tracey …

               15 April 2015 at 11:01 am

               From MBIE

               Trial periods

               Employers can make an offer of employment that includes a trial period of up to 90 days.
               Trial periods are voluntary, and must be agreed in writing and negotiated in good faith as part of the employment agreement.

               An employee who is dismissed before the end of a trial period can’t raise a personal grievance on the grounds of unjustified dismissal. They can raise a personal grievance on other grounds, such as discrimination, harassment or unjustified action by the employer.

               Employees on trial periods are entitled to all other minimum employment rights.
       • tricledrown 8.2.1.2

         14 April 2015 at 5:26 pm

         Shithouse is a groveling idiot .
         Claiming one of his grandparents was a W W1 hero!
         Low ranking liar.
         • Pasupial 8.2.1.2.1

           14 April 2015 at 6:30 pm

           tricledrown

           Woodhouse is almost as much of a compulsive liar as Key. The twisting of words, about his; Anzac day great-uncle, were something to behold:

           The Minister of Veterans’ Affairs told the ODT last month Trooper Frank Woodhouse, of the Otago Mounted Rifles, was his great-uncle.

           He found the name on a memorial on the Gallipoli peninsula commemorating New Zealanders killed in the campaign.

           ”It was a profound experience and I do feel a little more connected now.”…

           However it has emerged that the trooper shared only the Woodhouse surname with the MP.

           Family spokesman Gareth Woodhouse told Fairfax media the trooper was his great-uncle and the family had his medals.

           He had emailed the minister who replied with a “semi-apology”.

           http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/303064/woodhouse-admits-gallipoli-gaffe

           Then the next day:

           Veterans’ Affairs Minister Michael Woodhouse says he cannot recollect whether he blamed the Otago Daily Times for publishing a case of mistaken identity…

           The Dominion Post yesterday… reported Mr Woodhouse as saying his conversation with the ODT on April 25 was off the record…

           When asked if he had told The Dominion Post that his conversation with the ODT was off the record, he said: ”I’m not sure if I used the words off the record.

           ”If I described it that way, it wasn’t accurate,” he said…

           also made the comment to APNZ reporter Sophie Ryan on Anzac Day.

           She was certain the conversation was ”absolutely not” off the record.

           ”Their press secretary said, ‘Here’s his number, he will be really keen to talk because … he does have a relative link to the war’,” she said.

           Mr Woodhouse said, although he ”prematurely speculated” that Tpr Woodhouse was his great-uncle, there was ”no doubt in my mind that I was related to this guy”.

           http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/303134/mp-unsure-whether-he-blamed-odt

           And just in case that’s not enough, there’s always Woodhouse’s changing his Donghua Liu story three times within a single day:

           June 19:

           • 2pm Mr Woodhouse denies telling Mr Key about the letters

           • 3pm Mr Woodhouse says officials from his office briefed Mr Key’s office on the letters.

           • 7pm Mr Woodhouse’s office says the minister himself told Mr Key’s office about the letters and his office also gave copies of the letters to Mr Key’s office.

           http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11277608
           • Tracey 8.2.1.2.1.1

             15 April 2015 at 10:17 am

             The thing that stands out for me, is how people seem reluctant to attribute this kind of behaviour, Bridges lie about bridges and the list of lies and back flips to the environment set by the leadership.

             If parents behave badly and without principles you find their children tend to behave that way. If a coach has no ethics, no moral compass, you find many players don’t either. So WHY in politics do some just go “they are human, not perfect” and in that statement we lowe rour expectations on our politicians and the result?

             Read this thread, read the Bridges bridge lie and his prior history, read Collins history, read Key’s litany of lies and misleading statements and so on.

             BUT this government and people on both sides of the political spectrum don’t actually demand higher levels of behaviour from our politicians. We set the law as the minimum and maximum standard and then wonder why they lie to us.
       • tricledrown 8.2.1.3

         14 April 2015 at 5:36 pm

         Infused confused.
         That would be the intention of the law you would{house) think.
         All the employer does is not offer any hours inconvenient hr’s effectively constructive dismissal.
         Dismal Dickensian era employment law.
         These employers also are practising continual psychological abuse.
       • adam 8.2.1.4

         14 April 2015 at 6:40 pm

         infused

         You again prove my point on the utter lack of morals, by the right wing in this country.

         You language is offensive.
         • infused 8.2.1.4.1

           14 April 2015 at 11:29 pm

           cry me a river.
       • millsy 8.2.1.5

         14 April 2015 at 8:10 pm

         If you couldnt just say ‘your fired’ then the law wouldn’t be worth having (from a employers point of view)
         • infused 8.2.1.5.1

           14 April 2015 at 11:30 pm

           Again, another person that doesn’t actually understand it.
       • tracey 8.2.1.6

         15 April 2015 at 11:47 am

         Interestingly most of the cases turn on whether the 90 day trial period was properly outlined and conveyed.
     • Skinny 8.2.2

       14 April 2015 at 5:12 pm

       Interesting after seeing a lawyer from the EMA on TV news last night, having to try spin about the Zero hours contracts, her name was Jennifer I think, botox face to me. Anyway it reminded me of once listening to EMA lawyers on a conference call arguing that Nationals employment law changes like the fire at will Bill were a step too far and there was no need to meddle with Wilson/Labours ERA, that was quite a suprise.
       My partner at the time crossed over to the darkside and was a regional lawyer for them working from home, I was deliverying her a glass of wine. That old sexist prick (before the current snake Kim Campbell) that headed the bosses outfit said something I took exception too. I coughed out louder than meaning too ‘bullshit’ as I walked out the door, started laughing my head off when I could hear “what was that, who said that, then the not me who else is not this line.”

       My partner was furious, frantically waving her hands at me and mouthing all sorts of obscenities, which made me laugh harder, I couldn’t stop even knowing I was up for a tongue lashing when she got off the phone call, and I did 🙁

       Not too long after that incident we split up I told her it was never going to work me being a dirty old unionist and her taking on a job representing the bosses. Life panned out pretty good she goes out with an older business man and I have a younger women who shares a love of animals. 🙂
       • Tracey 8.2.2.1

         15 April 2015 at 10:18 am

         “her name was Jennifer I think, botox face to me.”

         Are you infused’s left-wing alter ego?
9. infused 9

   14 April 2015 at 4:44 pm

   Under a 90-day trial your boss can fire you for getting injured on the job. Or calling in sick. Or joining the union. Or rebuffing sexual harassment. All things which it would be illegal for someone to fire you for in any other circumstances.

   Can someone post some examples of this happening please.
   • tricledrown 9.1

     14 April 2015 at 4:52 pm

     Infused my daughter has worked at 2 Zero hours jobs both international brands.
     The number of employment laws broken by these sadistic companies would astound you Infused.
     • te reo putake 9.1.1

       14 April 2015 at 5:01 pm

       They wouldn’t astound infused, they’d please him.
     • infused 9.1.2

       14 April 2015 at 11:31 pm

       So no examples then. Thanks.
   • millsy 9.2

     14 April 2015 at 8:23 pm

     They could just get rid of you at the end of your 90 day period and just say that it was ‘something else’.

     You live in a day dream. If bossed really couldnt sack people under the 90 day law or doing the above, then they wouldnt be fighting to the death to keep it.
     • infused 9.2.1

       14 April 2015 at 11:34 pm

       No, it just proves you don’t know what you’re talking about. Like most other people here.
       • thatguynz 9.2.1.1

         15 April 2015 at 11:12 am

         So “most other people here” have no idea what they’re talking about yet you are the enlightened one?? Why does this feel like a Tui billboard..
   • felix 9.3

     14 April 2015 at 8:38 pm

     infused, the thing is they can fire you without giving any reason at all.

     So you might never know whether it was because you joined a union or not. Or because you took too long for smoko. Or because you just weren’t any good at the job. Or because you’re gay. Or because you’re not. Or because you called in sick. Or because you make a shit cup of tea and the boss is having a bad day.

     But all they have to say is don’t come monday.
     • infused 9.3.1

       14 April 2015 at 11:33 pm

       It’s simply not the case and I challenge you to back that up with an example.
       • North 9.3.1.1

         14 April 2015 at 11:49 pm

         “It’s simply not the case”. Tell us how it’s not the case. Examples have nothing to do with it. Tell us how the law proscribes that. Weakling.
       • felix 9.3.1.2

         15 April 2015 at 9:19 am

         An example of what, infused?

         I’m not taking the piss, I’m genuinely asking. Cos I don’t see how I could give an example of someone not saying something.

         Could you perhaps tell me which part of the law is in conflict with what I’ve said?

         Here’s the piece of legislation we’re talking about: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/DLM1867204.html

         The relevant bit states:

         (2)Trial provision means a written provision in an employment agreement that states, or is to the effect, that—
         (a)for a specified period (not exceeding 90 days), starting at the beginning of the employee’s employment, the employee is to serve a trial period; and
         (b)during that period the employer may dismiss the employee; and
         (c)if the employer does so, the employee is not entitled to bring a personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.

         It’s in pretty plain language, but here’s an even mopre plain version from the MOBI website: http://www.dol.govt.nz/workplace/knowledgebase/item/1517
         • Lanthanide 9.3.1.2.1

           15 April 2015 at 9:42 am

           From the MOBI website: “the employer can dismiss the employee without the employee being able to take a personal grievance for reasons of unjustified dismissal.”

           So you can still bring a personal grievance for reasons of constructive dismissal.
           • felix 9.3.1.2.1.1

             15 April 2015 at 9:50 am

             But not for unjustified dismissal.

             So walk me through it. You employ me on a contract with a 90-day trial.

             A month later you fire me. No reason given.

             My recourse is what?
             • Tracey …

               15 April 2015 at 10:20 am

               THIS is what I would also like the answer to?
             • Lanthanide …

               15 April 2015 at 10:37 am

               Determine if there is cause for a constructive dismissal claim. If there is, lodge one. If there isn’t, move on.

               The point is, the law *does not* say you can fire someone under the 90 day law and be immune to *all* legal recourse from the employee.
               • te reo putake …

                 15 April 2015 at 10:50 am

                 I don’t think that’s the right phrase. A constructive dismissal is where an employee resigns because of the actions or inactions of the employer. That is, the employer makes life so bad for the worker that they have no choice but to resign.

                 Are you thinking of something else in employment law?
                 • Lanthanide …

                   15 April 2015 at 10:52 am

                   Hostile work environment. Employee performance deteriorates. Employee is terminated under 90 day period for poor performance. Employee lodges PG for constructive dismissal – their poor performance was due to hostile work environment perpetuated by the employer.
                   • te reo putake …

                     15 April 2015 at 11:01 am

                     That’s not a constructive dismissal because its a firing, not a resignation. Even if it were, if the employer does not give a reason for the dismissal (ie poor performance) then no claim can arise.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     15 April 2015 at 11:51 am

                     I’d be interested to see how a “fired for no reason” will stand up in the court. Has there been any case law on this?
                   • te reo putake …

                     15 April 2015 at 11:57 am

                     Good question! Probably not, because there’s no point taking a case on that basis. The 90 day provision does not require a reason to be given. That’s kinda the point of the provision; to allow dismissal without good cause as well as dismissal with good cause.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     15 April 2015 at 12:41 pm

                     It’s easy to see how case law could be made: someone makes a claim that they were dismissed based on a protected area, the employer claims that they fired them for “no reason as they are allowed to do under the law”.

                     Employment court says “no, you must give a reason, so we can determine if the reason for dismissal is a protected one or not, which is still protected under the law despite the 90 days provision”.
                   • tracey …

                     15 April 2015 at 12:44 pm

                     assuming an employee can afford to take the case and that an employer wouldn’t appeal it and so on. My best guess, based on experience, is that it has happened, but if challenged has settled. Hence it hasn’t got to case law stage. Of course I am very new to case law, only learning about it today (joking), and have done a cursory search only.

                     Oh, and read the Stoke case.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     15 April 2015 at 1:11 pm

                     The government website seems to be down, but I found this: http://www.conferenz.co.nz/whitepapers/90-day-trials-lessons-smith-v-stokes-valley-pharmacy

                     (b) The employer must treat employees fairly and in accordance with the employment agreement in all other respects during the trial period. In Smith, the employment agreement required the employer to address performance concerns, which it did not do.

                     (c) The ERA (s67B) only negates the normal requirement to give reasons for the dismissal in writing when subsequently and formally called upon to do so. The ERA does not preclude an employer being obliged (when asked) to provide an explanation for the dismissal at the time of giving notice of termination during the trial period. The s4 good faith obligations appear to require employers to give an explanation for the dismissal at the time of giving notice.

                     (d) Notice of termination must be given in accordance with the employment agreement. The decision in Smith appears to preclude summary dismissal, although a payment in lieu of notice seems allowable if provided for in the agreement.

                     So, there we go. The employment court has already said that you can’t fire someone for “no reason” under the 90 day provision.
                   • tracey …

                     15 April 2015 at 1:13 pm

                     LOLOLOLOL

                     It’s even clearer if you read the actual case, and more besides. It answers every legal question raised in this discussion, incluidng an examination of the Parliament’s intent.

                     http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/employment-court/documents/2010-%20NZEmpc%20111%20Smith%20v%20Stokes%20Valley%20Pharmacy%20-2009-%20Limited.pdf
                   • te reo putake …

                     15 April 2015 at 1:16 pm

                     The court has no actual right to demand an answer to that question and the employer has the absolute right to not say why. If they chose to answer, they could simply say “it wasn’t working out”. End of story.

                     It’s up to the worker to offer proof that it’s an unfair dismissal under the very limited alternatives (harassment etc.). The onus is completely on the person making the complaint and the employer does not have to say a thing.

                     Again, the point of the provision to allow unfair dismissals to occur.
                   • tracey …

                     15 April 2015 at 1:18 pm

                     TRP

                     Have a read of the case. It is very useful for an insight into Court interpretation in this whole 90- day trial
                   • te reo putake …

                     15 April 2015 at 1:40 pm

                     Cheers, Tracey. It’s a bit more forceful in the ‘reasons’ section than I remembered ( I read it when it first came out) and I note reference to what a reasonable employer ‘would do’ rather than the watered down ‘could do’ we have today.

                     All in all, a good summary of the rights and obligations of the parties.
                   • tracey …

                     15 April 2015 at 1:43 pm

                     TRP

                     Yea i read it way back then too. I was also wondering how some parts would look now with the watered down employer onus aspect.

                     This decision wouldn’t ave pleased this government, imo.
               • You_Fool …

                 15 April 2015 at 11:31 am

                 In reality however this is a case where the courts are basically rewriting the law with case law. It is similar to Sue Bradford’s anti-child abuse law where the law eventually got changed to be in-line with how the courts were actually finding. However in the 90-day fire at will law it is more that the courts/law system have not changed with the law (because the law is shit)

                 Hence what Lath was talking about further up – lawyers are advising employers to follow due process because they know that the courts will side with the employee as long as there is a technicality to be pulled up on. So De Jure the situation is stupid and shitty, but De Facto nothing has really changed and the law should be repealed and put back how it was

                 it is also why there are no cases to provide to Infused, because the courts are interpreting the law to still be the same (as much as they are able.)
                 • tracey …

                   15 April 2015 at 12:22 pm

                   As far as I can tell the definitive case of 90 Day Trial periods was dated 2009 and appealed to the Employment Court in 2010

                   Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd

                   Also, many cases settle before getting to a decision which can distort the picture of employer and employee behaviours.
                   • tracey …

                     15 April 2015 at 12:30 pm

                     [2010] NZEmpC 111
10. felix 10

    14 April 2015 at 7:30 pm

    Do we really have to choose?
11. ScottGN 11

    14 April 2015 at 10:31 pm

    Radio NZ just replayed the Woodhouse/Little interviews from Morning Report this morning on their evening roundup. You get the feeling Kim Hill is having a great time!
12. North 12

    14 April 2015 at 11:44 pm

    Was good to hear Kim Hill on Morning Report today pointedly requiring idiot Woodhouse to explain WHY he didn’t know such and such – “You are the minister after all……WHY don’t you know ?”

    Surely its 101 stuff……how the fuck can a minister in a government cry off with shit like “That’s not a matter the responsibility of MY ministry therefore I can’t blah blah blah…..” ?

    It really is outrageous for ministers in a government which preaches ‘responsibility’ to behave like this. One thing’s for sure……try that shit in any of the bars and public gathering places I’m familiar with……well – bunch of fives stuff !!! Shows the contempt in which these mongrels hold us. Just say ‘something’……’anything’. As long as it’s denial.
    • tc 12.1

      15 April 2015 at 6:21 am

      Kim shows that simple questions about minister competency has woodhouse all at sea.

      It’s that simple and yet gluon, dunc, paddy etc etc all seem incapable of it because they are owned and not serving an independent role.

      Key will never ever front Kim hill as she is not owned unlike Suzy and gluon.
13. millsy 13

    14 April 2015 at 11:51 pm

    Do you value your workers infused?

    Or do just see them as expenadable?

    Do you begrudge having to pay sick leave, holidays etc?

    Are you going to not let them have breaks?

    Would you pay zero wages if you could?
14. repateet 14

    15 April 2015 at 10:02 am

    Question: Michael Woodhouse: a fool or a liar?

    Answer: Yes

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS