Marguerite
Active Member
I'm angry about this. She was having problems with her boss (all the girls were) and they weren't able to complain to anyone higher up (which they're supposed to be able to do, by law). I personally witnessed some of these problems (he thought I was just another customer when he chided her in front of me for having a sip of water from her water bottle while there was a customer in the store - but by law, workers must have free access to drinking water at all times). So she put her concerns in writing (worded very carefully so as not to be critical of her boss) and included a formal request for mediation, in order to resolve the differences of opinion. Included in her concerns was her boss saying to her, "One more customer complaint and you're sacked," when as far as she is aware, she gets customer praise and never a complaint.
The letter requesting mediation she faxed to head office in from the shop office, after she was told by the boss's boss to send it to them because HE refused to deal with it.
They acknowledged the letter and said they'd look into it. Then no other response. The request for mediation was ignored. However, beginning the very next day, the very boss she was having trouble with told her she was forbidden from contacting the head office and was banned from entering the shop office. This meant she couldn't do her supervisor job properly. She had other access and responsibilities removed and was also told that she was not permitted to do this, or to do that. Even when a co-supervisor asked her to do a particular task (which she should have been allowed to so) the boss said she couldn't do anything without getting his permission.
Utterly ridiculous.
I made some enquiries and was told by our government offices that this constituted workplace bullying. The failure of the company to provide mediation especially on written request, was a direct violation of our workplace laws. Some of the other concerns expressed in her letter were clear breaches of safety regulations.
It wasclear to us she was being punished for daring to complain, even though her 'complaint' had been worded very diplomatically. And to punish her for complaining like this - again, illegal.
easy child 2/difficult child 2 should have, at this stage, followed through and complained again about being victimised. But since she was getting married soon and needed the money from her job, she chose to shut up and keep a low profile.
After a few weeks the boss called her in. "I'm giving you another chance," he said. "I know you're getting married soon, otherwise I'd have fired you." He handed her back her keys and once more allowed her to use the shop's office, told her she was once more permitted to work as supervisor.
Now as far as we have been able to determine, easy child 2/difficult child 2 has not done anything wrong. At no stage has she ever had a customer complain about her, she has never been given written warnings (the old system of industrial relations) and therefore no way to respond when someone says, "You are not doing your job." She was also not the only staff member in the firing line from this bloke. And the reason we think he gave easy child 2/difficult child 2 back her keys and extra duties etc, was because the other supervisor went off on leave and they needed SOMEONE who knew the ropes.
That was about a month ago. Maybe less. Since then whenever I've walked past all I've seen is her hard at work, the staff working as a team with her a vital part of it. She's a good organiser and got on well with everybody (except the boss, who only got on well with one of the girls, we suspect it's the girl who was white-anting easy child 2/difficult child 2 and others).
Today was easy child 2/difficult child 2's last day before five weeks' leave (approved ages ago). They knew she was leaving to get married, then was taking her honeymoon, then needed two weeks more off for college prac work. She did the same thing (college prac work, two weeks unpaid leave) last year for the same company. And the year before.
But this morning she was told she is out of a job. They're making it look like retrenchment, they told her they need to let someone go because they can't afford to keep everyone on. But they recently appointed another supervisor (who easy child 2/difficult child 2 actually helped train, even during her period of apparent demotion) and no other staff have been let go, as far as we know. mother in law just happened to be in the store when this all happened, she saw the responses of the other girls and is convinced they knew about it before easy child 2/difficult child 2 did.
They promised her a glowing reference. "We will give you a good reference and tell any future employer what a conscientous hard worker you are," the head office staffing person told her.
She let me know during her half-hour lunch break. I immediately got on the phone and reactivated the earlier complaint files with the government. This changed that picture entirely. However, easy child 2/difficult child 2 now has to put her signature on paper, or the electronic equivalent. I've done the homework, cut through the red tape to distil the information.
easy child 2/difficult child 2's concern is - they waited to sack her on her last day before her holidays. They said it was two weeks' notice, but according to her contract it's supposed to be three weeks. She's worried she will get back form her honeymoon plus two weeks' prac, to be totally broke. She has put every penny into this wedding, including a last-minute purchase of an item of jewellery which (if she had known about being sacked) she wouldn't have bought.
She has nothing in writing to say she's sacked. They're talking like it's retrenchment (but we do know better). Prior to the dismissal she was bullied by her boss and then victimised when she tried to take the steps permitted her legally, to resolve matters. This is illegal.
So we're putting in the boot, now she has nothing to lose. She didn't want to risk her job before the wedding - no point worrying, now.
But next week is going to be full already. She really could have done without this.
What I found out - she has three issues.
1) workplace bullying. She now needs to ring one number (they already have a case file on the matter) and they will follow it up.
2) has she been unfairly dismissed? The government agency I spoke to said IF she has been sacked, then yes, it is unfair under these circumstances. BUT she MUST register her complaint within the next two weeks.
[interesting idea here - did they beleive she was leaving to get married tomorrow? In which case - she would not have a chance to register her complaint before returning form her honeymoon. Hence waiting until today is a very effective way to prevent her filing the cvomplaint}.
3) If she has not been sacked but has instead been retrenched, then unfair dismissal is not an issue. BUT according to the law, she is entitled to 10 weeks severance pay. Again, a government form to fill in (although she has plenty of time - 60 days).
The government body said to fill in BOTH sets of forms, then go off on her honeymoon and let THEM worry about it all.
Now, in her workplace easy child 2/difficult child 2 comes across as a hard worker who will try to speak up if she feels there is a more efficient way to do things, but who otherwise will not make waves. She was told this morning she was out of work but she didn't walk off the job, she stayed to finish the day. How many people would do that? Especially under these circumstances? So how likely does sheseem, to be someone who would make formal complaints to te government?
But just in case, they seem to me to be trying to muddy the waters.
Because if she files only ONE set of forms, they will claim the opposite. By making this seem to be severance, they encourage her to think that way too. Nobody likes to believe they have been sacked. She probably won't get all the pay entitlements straight away because there will be officialdom, red tape etc slowing it down. They only have to slow it down for a week (probably less, in their mind, if they beleive she's getting married tomorrow instead of next Friday). So they let her think it's retrenchment and along with any outstanding hiliday pay, she gets the 10 weeks severance pay. But if that severance pay never materialises and she tries to claim for it a9within the 60 day deadline) I'm betting the company is counting on being able to say, "Oh that wasn't severance. We sacked her."
But if this is what they say more than two weeks after they sack her and she hasn't already filed, it will be too late then to claim for wrongful dismissal. It is no good if she says, "But I didn't realise it was sacking, I was told it was severance," because she has nothing in writing.
I am sure this is what they're up to.
To say I'm furious is an understatement. Here I am typing about this at 1.30 am, when I need to be up to call easy child 2/difficult child 2 in the morning so we can plan what to do about all this. I'm supposed to be going to a meeting tomorrow afternoon, easy child is arriving tomorrow afternoon also to go to easy child 2/difficult child 2's hen's night which instead of being a celebration, it's going to be a wake. This HAS to get sorted because otherwise the despair will cripple her and we won't get a darn thing done for the wedding.
She had begun looking for another job when this business started. Then when she got reinstated (and with the wedding coming up close) she stopped looking. Why apply for jobs when she won't be here for the interviews? A classmate at college told her of a job opening, easy child 2/difficult child 2 said to her, "Not right now, I will have to wait until after I go back to work after my leave."
Now she has to track down her classmate and say, "About that job offer..." and hope it's still open.
If only they had been honest with her. After all, they have known they were going to do this. Telling her they're giving her two weeks' notice, but making it on her last day there before holidays - oh, I'm so angry! THAT bit is legal, unfortunately. Just very immoral, in my book.
Only yesterday her previous boss asked after her, asked if she was still working for this company. I said she was. Mind you, she doesn't want to go back there, it would be a big step down. She had worked her way up in this new company over the last few years (and that wouldn't have happened if they didn't like her work).
I'm not asking for advice really, because this is the Australian workplace environment and that will be different to how it works in your area. But I DO need to vent, and rage.
Oh, and the last prize piece? The boss told her this afternoon that the reason she had been the one to be let go, was probably because she had asked for five weeks' leave. But THEY approved that leave months ago! And some of it was leave without pay, anyway. Half of it is leave for te wedding, the other half is leave associated with further study - I'll have to check out the law again, but I think it's illegal to use that as grounds for dismissal. Unbelievable! But aimed to make her feel that even if it's retrenchment, it's HER fault. Which, if it's retrenchment, it woudn't be.
I'll keep you posted on how we get on.
Marg
The letter requesting mediation she faxed to head office in from the shop office, after she was told by the boss's boss to send it to them because HE refused to deal with it.
They acknowledged the letter and said they'd look into it. Then no other response. The request for mediation was ignored. However, beginning the very next day, the very boss she was having trouble with told her she was forbidden from contacting the head office and was banned from entering the shop office. This meant she couldn't do her supervisor job properly. She had other access and responsibilities removed and was also told that she was not permitted to do this, or to do that. Even when a co-supervisor asked her to do a particular task (which she should have been allowed to so) the boss said she couldn't do anything without getting his permission.
Utterly ridiculous.
I made some enquiries and was told by our government offices that this constituted workplace bullying. The failure of the company to provide mediation especially on written request, was a direct violation of our workplace laws. Some of the other concerns expressed in her letter were clear breaches of safety regulations.
It wasclear to us she was being punished for daring to complain, even though her 'complaint' had been worded very diplomatically. And to punish her for complaining like this - again, illegal.
easy child 2/difficult child 2 should have, at this stage, followed through and complained again about being victimised. But since she was getting married soon and needed the money from her job, she chose to shut up and keep a low profile.
After a few weeks the boss called her in. "I'm giving you another chance," he said. "I know you're getting married soon, otherwise I'd have fired you." He handed her back her keys and once more allowed her to use the shop's office, told her she was once more permitted to work as supervisor.
Now as far as we have been able to determine, easy child 2/difficult child 2 has not done anything wrong. At no stage has she ever had a customer complain about her, she has never been given written warnings (the old system of industrial relations) and therefore no way to respond when someone says, "You are not doing your job." She was also not the only staff member in the firing line from this bloke. And the reason we think he gave easy child 2/difficult child 2 back her keys and extra duties etc, was because the other supervisor went off on leave and they needed SOMEONE who knew the ropes.
That was about a month ago. Maybe less. Since then whenever I've walked past all I've seen is her hard at work, the staff working as a team with her a vital part of it. She's a good organiser and got on well with everybody (except the boss, who only got on well with one of the girls, we suspect it's the girl who was white-anting easy child 2/difficult child 2 and others).
Today was easy child 2/difficult child 2's last day before five weeks' leave (approved ages ago). They knew she was leaving to get married, then was taking her honeymoon, then needed two weeks more off for college prac work. She did the same thing (college prac work, two weeks unpaid leave) last year for the same company. And the year before.
But this morning she was told she is out of a job. They're making it look like retrenchment, they told her they need to let someone go because they can't afford to keep everyone on. But they recently appointed another supervisor (who easy child 2/difficult child 2 actually helped train, even during her period of apparent demotion) and no other staff have been let go, as far as we know. mother in law just happened to be in the store when this all happened, she saw the responses of the other girls and is convinced they knew about it before easy child 2/difficult child 2 did.
They promised her a glowing reference. "We will give you a good reference and tell any future employer what a conscientous hard worker you are," the head office staffing person told her.
She let me know during her half-hour lunch break. I immediately got on the phone and reactivated the earlier complaint files with the government. This changed that picture entirely. However, easy child 2/difficult child 2 now has to put her signature on paper, or the electronic equivalent. I've done the homework, cut through the red tape to distil the information.
easy child 2/difficult child 2's concern is - they waited to sack her on her last day before her holidays. They said it was two weeks' notice, but according to her contract it's supposed to be three weeks. She's worried she will get back form her honeymoon plus two weeks' prac, to be totally broke. She has put every penny into this wedding, including a last-minute purchase of an item of jewellery which (if she had known about being sacked) she wouldn't have bought.
She has nothing in writing to say she's sacked. They're talking like it's retrenchment (but we do know better). Prior to the dismissal she was bullied by her boss and then victimised when she tried to take the steps permitted her legally, to resolve matters. This is illegal.
So we're putting in the boot, now she has nothing to lose. She didn't want to risk her job before the wedding - no point worrying, now.
But next week is going to be full already. She really could have done without this.
What I found out - she has three issues.
1) workplace bullying. She now needs to ring one number (they already have a case file on the matter) and they will follow it up.
2) has she been unfairly dismissed? The government agency I spoke to said IF she has been sacked, then yes, it is unfair under these circumstances. BUT she MUST register her complaint within the next two weeks.
[interesting idea here - did they beleive she was leaving to get married tomorrow? In which case - she would not have a chance to register her complaint before returning form her honeymoon. Hence waiting until today is a very effective way to prevent her filing the cvomplaint}.
3) If she has not been sacked but has instead been retrenched, then unfair dismissal is not an issue. BUT according to the law, she is entitled to 10 weeks severance pay. Again, a government form to fill in (although she has plenty of time - 60 days).
The government body said to fill in BOTH sets of forms, then go off on her honeymoon and let THEM worry about it all.
Now, in her workplace easy child 2/difficult child 2 comes across as a hard worker who will try to speak up if she feels there is a more efficient way to do things, but who otherwise will not make waves. She was told this morning she was out of work but she didn't walk off the job, she stayed to finish the day. How many people would do that? Especially under these circumstances? So how likely does sheseem, to be someone who would make formal complaints to te government?
But just in case, they seem to me to be trying to muddy the waters.
Because if she files only ONE set of forms, they will claim the opposite. By making this seem to be severance, they encourage her to think that way too. Nobody likes to believe they have been sacked. She probably won't get all the pay entitlements straight away because there will be officialdom, red tape etc slowing it down. They only have to slow it down for a week (probably less, in their mind, if they beleive she's getting married tomorrow instead of next Friday). So they let her think it's retrenchment and along with any outstanding hiliday pay, she gets the 10 weeks severance pay. But if that severance pay never materialises and she tries to claim for it a9within the 60 day deadline) I'm betting the company is counting on being able to say, "Oh that wasn't severance. We sacked her."
But if this is what they say more than two weeks after they sack her and she hasn't already filed, it will be too late then to claim for wrongful dismissal. It is no good if she says, "But I didn't realise it was sacking, I was told it was severance," because she has nothing in writing.
I am sure this is what they're up to.
To say I'm furious is an understatement. Here I am typing about this at 1.30 am, when I need to be up to call easy child 2/difficult child 2 in the morning so we can plan what to do about all this. I'm supposed to be going to a meeting tomorrow afternoon, easy child is arriving tomorrow afternoon also to go to easy child 2/difficult child 2's hen's night which instead of being a celebration, it's going to be a wake. This HAS to get sorted because otherwise the despair will cripple her and we won't get a darn thing done for the wedding.
She had begun looking for another job when this business started. Then when she got reinstated (and with the wedding coming up close) she stopped looking. Why apply for jobs when she won't be here for the interviews? A classmate at college told her of a job opening, easy child 2/difficult child 2 said to her, "Not right now, I will have to wait until after I go back to work after my leave."
Now she has to track down her classmate and say, "About that job offer..." and hope it's still open.
If only they had been honest with her. After all, they have known they were going to do this. Telling her they're giving her two weeks' notice, but making it on her last day there before holidays - oh, I'm so angry! THAT bit is legal, unfortunately. Just very immoral, in my book.
Only yesterday her previous boss asked after her, asked if she was still working for this company. I said she was. Mind you, she doesn't want to go back there, it would be a big step down. She had worked her way up in this new company over the last few years (and that wouldn't have happened if they didn't like her work).
I'm not asking for advice really, because this is the Australian workplace environment and that will be different to how it works in your area. But I DO need to vent, and rage.
Oh, and the last prize piece? The boss told her this afternoon that the reason she had been the one to be let go, was probably because she had asked for five weeks' leave. But THEY approved that leave months ago! And some of it was leave without pay, anyway. Half of it is leave for te wedding, the other half is leave associated with further study - I'll have to check out the law again, but I think it's illegal to use that as grounds for dismissal. Unbelievable! But aimed to make her feel that even if it's retrenchment, it's HER fault. Which, if it's retrenchment, it woudn't be.
I'll keep you posted on how we get on.
Marg
Last edited: