GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

Industrial relations gone mad

Tensixty6

Tensixty6

Old & Senile
Location
Melbourne, Australia
According to the VACC.....

Failure to allow a support person can lead to an unfair dismissal claim.

An employer must ensure than an employee is offered a "support person" when instituting a formal disciplinary procedure. Formal disiplinary procedures are used to manage issues such as poor performance or misconduct of employees. A support person may be a shop steward, union official, workplace employee representative, lawyer, family member, friend, relative or work colleague.

A support person cannot act as a spokesperson or advocate for an employee or answer questions on behalf of the employee. During a meeting the employer should allow breaks, if requested, so that the employee and the support person can discuss any issues that arise during the meeting.

So, next time you ask a member of staff to come into the office for a discussion about their behaviour or slackness, just remember to give them enough time to call their Mummy so she can come in and hold their hand.

What a joke. :iono:
 
TDI_DSG

TDI_DSG

Ready to race!
Location
Sydney
Car(s)
Golf MK5
at the last few places i have worked for, that's been the general rule of thumb.

if an employee is called into a managers office, (for disciplinary reasons)
that employee has the right to have another person present to act as a witness to anything that might happen.

personally i think it's a good idea. what happens if a heated argument errupts ? or worse ? :iono:

im damn sure i want a witness as to who started things, and what was said by whom.

a few weeks ago, our company got into big shit with the union as they had words with a union member
and refused to allow him a witness. (they cant legally refuse the request)
especially as it's in our EBA document.

Jason.
 
Tensixty6

Tensixty6

Old & Senile
Location
Melbourne, Australia
TDI_DSG said:
If an employee is called into a managers office, (for disciplinary reasons)
that employee has the right to have another person present to act as a witness to anything that might happen.

personally i think it's a good idea. what happens if a heated argument errupts ? or worse ? :iono:

im damn sure i want a witness as to who started things, and what was said by whom.

Jason.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good Jason, providing the witness acts with absolute impartiality. As it stands, it seems to me to promote a decidedly prejudicial atmosphere. If an employee calls in a family member or family friend for example it's hardly likely that they would act with impartiality. Seems to me to be very one sided.
 
A

AAAARRRGH32

I used to be a Pirate...
Location
Perth
Car(s)
08 Golf R32
MK5GTI said:
That's all well and good Jason, providing the witness acts with absolute impartiality.
Click to expand...

I don't think the intent for the support person is to act as a witness. It's to assist in preventing bullying in the workplace and the intent for a support person is to provide advice to the person who is being reprimanded. After all, there are a hell of a lot of people out there that don't actually understand their workplace rights .
 
TDI_DSG

TDI_DSG

Ready to race!
Location
Sydney
Car(s)
Golf MK5
in my curent work place, management usually has a witness for themselves.
so i dont see why the employee shouldn't be allowed the same right.

in most cases here, the manager will have someone from HR in the office too.
unless it's something really trivial that they are "counselling" the employee over anyway.

i agree that if management doesnt have a witness, it could be a little one sided.

Jason.
 
Tensixty6

Tensixty6

Old & Senile
Location
Melbourne, Australia
TDI_DSG said:
In my current work place, management usually has a witness for themselves.
So i dont see why the employee shouldn't be allowed the same right.

Jason.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. "AAAARRRGH32" has suggested however that the support person is there to advise the employee on their rights. I'm not sure about that. It would seem pointless to request a family member or friend for example unless of course they just happened to be knowledgeable in workplace relations.

Seems a shame that an employer and employee couldn't just calmly sit down and discuss issues without turning it into major event.
 
TDI_DSG

TDI_DSG

Ready to race!
Location
Sydney
Car(s)
Golf MK5
MK5GTI said:
Seems a shame that an employer and employee couldn't just calmly sit down and discuss issues without turning it into major event.
Click to expand...

that's one thing we can agree on.

were becoming more and more like the USA here in oz.
more and more litigious every day.

Jason.
 
buckets

buckets

Ready to race!
Location
Melbourne
TDI_DSG said:
that's one thing we can agree on.

were becoming more and more like the USA here in oz.
more and more litigious every day.

Jason.
Click to expand...

I reckon it mainly stems from the fact that people aren't prepared to take responsibility for their own actions. The rest is because there are some out there who will try to screw somebody else in order to get an advantage for themselves.
 
A

AAAARRRGH32

I used to be a Pirate...
Location
Perth
Car(s)
08 Golf R32
MK5GTI said:
"AAAARRRGH32" has suggested however that the support person is there to advise the employee on their rights. I'm not sure about that. It would seem pointless to request a family member or friend for example unless of course they just happened to be knowledgeable in workplace relations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't proclaim to be an expert on this. Just what I have read in policies where I have worked, the support person is there to take notes if required and to provide advice to the person being reprimanded. I've also seen policies where it specifically prohibits the person being a lawyer, the support person is not there to advocate on behalf of the employee. So, I suppose you could call that being a witness...I just don't like the term 'witness' - it suggests that the sole purpose is to be there in case it goes to court.

Anyway, I do agree with what's being said. It's sad that this actually has to be a policy to begin with!

Mal (a lot easier to write than my nick, eh?)
 
TimT

TimT

Go Kart Champion
Location
East Bentleigh
Businesses should be able to hire or fire people as they wish for whatever reason they wish.
Maybe then people would work harder and appreciate their employers instead of always demanding their rights.
A job is not a right. Its a responsibility. The work ethic in this country is going down the gurgler.
 
saad

saad

Go Kart Champion
Location
Canberra, Australia
TimT said:
Businesses should be able to hire or fire people as they wish for whatever reason they wish.
Maybe then people would work harder and appreciate their employers instead of always demanding their rights.
A job is not a right. Its a responsibility. The work ethic in this country is going down the gurgler.
Click to expand...

Agree x100000

I have experienced lazy useless employees first hand from a business owners view (my dad), and the fact that he couldn't get rid of them due to 'rights'. It really is a joke.

And I say this as an employee right now.
 
buckets

buckets

Ready to race!
Location
Melbourne
Businesses should be able to hire or fire people as they wish for whatever reason they wish.
Maybe then people would work harder and appreciate their employers instead of always demanding their rights.
A job is not a right. Its a responsibility. The work ethic in this country is going down the gurgler.
Click to expand...
saad said:
I have experienced lazy useless employees first hand from a business owners view (my dad), and the fact that he couldn't get rid of them due to 'rights'. It really is a joke.

And I say this as an employee right now.
Click to expand...

I know where you're coming from guys, and in the perfect world this would be the way things should work. However, we don't live in a perfect world and there are some unscrupulous people out there who will figuratively cut your throat to make a dollar.
We've all heard the stories of employers who get the service from employees who are willing to do the right thing and then give them the proverbial finger in answer to their requests for monies due for services rendered.
Don't get me wrong, I think shiftless bastards and oxygen thieves should be accountable for their actions/inaction. But this sort of issue is never going to be black and white; as a result everyone is going to be unhappy with the current system.
And Tim, look to the sweat shops in SE Asia for the result of no worker protection. Oh, and don't worry about the environment while you're at it, because the flow on effect generally for paying peanuts is ending up with monkeys!
Proof is in the pudding boys and girls, if you offer good money with set expectations, the best candidates will apply.

[/rant]
 
M

morty

Ready to race!
Location
Melbourne
Car(s)
Mk5 R32 3door
1. employer can still require employee to answer the questions themselves at disciplinary meetings (and should do so).
2. employee always entitled to obtain legal advice. It's a basic human right whenever there is something being done which will affect an individuals' current circumstances. But see (1) above.
3. it's an easy compliance step for employers. Offer the support person, but ensure they're aware that they can't put words into the employee's mouth. Easy enough.

A few simple 'human decency' rules don't go astray when having to deal with issues that are obviously stressful for the individual involved. Having the support person present allows the employer to also claim that any statement given by the employee wasn't obtained under duress (if that is later asserted by the employee). It's all logical and in the best interests of the employer in the long run.

Here endeth the lesson.
 
Tensixty6

Tensixty6

Old & Senile
Location
Melbourne, Australia
TimT said:
I wonder if the Labor party loses the upcoming election. Would Kevin Rudd have a case to sue for wrongful dismissal? :D
Click to expand...

Not sure about that scenario. I do wonder however how long Julia would last if it eventuated that she lost the election. Boy, would the knives be out then. :paddle:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top