Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
easy child 2/difficult child 2 got sacked!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 307442" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>Abbey, check your laws. For us in Australia, it's a basic human rights thing - within reason, toilet breaks are NOT part of the "15 minute break" thing. Of course if you are in a position where someone has to be there, you do have to schedule it so things continue to function. Go online and see if there is general OH&S legislation in your state/country that covers this. Similarly, access to water. For us, employers MUST allow free access to potable water for all employees. If the employer doesn't want te employee to leave work station to go have a drink of water, then they have to allow the employee to have a water bottle with them. For easy child 2/difficult child 2's boss to insist she nott have a drink of water while a customer could see it, is ludicrous. Head office responded to her concerns over this and asked her to compromise and not have a swig of water while actually serving a customer, but to wait in between customers. Which of course is common sense. And also perfectly legal.</p><p></p><p>husband & I have been digging. We rang her this morning to get the official business numbers (like a business social security number, it tells a great deal about the company). We asked her for the name of the company, and the number, on her pay slips. And it seems we've had things backwards (or they've given their staff deliberately the backwards info). According towhat we have understood, easy child 2/difficult child 2 originally worked for Company A while at the other end of the store was a rival business. Then rival business went bust. Company A bought the lease on the site and opened up, but NOT with the same uniforms etc as Company A. No, the uniforms were a different colour with a different name on them. easy child 2/difficult child 2 told us, "It's the same company, they've actually asked me to transfer up there as supervisor which would be a promotion. I'm not sure I can while I still live at home, I told them, but I'm happy to be acting supervisor while they get started."</p><p>During that trial period, easy child 2/difficult child 2 & BF2 found a flat and moved out. The company also hired a girl who had been supervisor for the previous (now out of business) rival company. I was glad to see her back in the same sort of job in the same place. She's a nice girl.</p><p></p><p>All the time, we were told to keep it secret that the new place, Company B, was owned by Company A. Whenever easy child 2/difficult child 2 had to contact Head Office, it was answered with, "Company A" and emails were headed "Company A". As I understand it.</p><p></p><p>However, there is another company name in there, Company C.</p><p></p><p>When I began my digging, I found that Company A is listed as a family-owned company. A big family - there are branches all round Sydney, about 5 of them.</p><p></p><p>Now I just spoke to easy child 2/difficult child 2 (still sleepy, had a rough night - understandable) and the information on her pay slips says, "Company C".</p><p></p><p>With husband's expertise now in the equation, we did more digging. It seems there have been some interesting changes to Company C. It also seems that they own Company A and Company B. Company B in fact only exists as a name, no location given. Which means that all the money etc, actually is handled by either A or C. B is a front. A label on some girls' work shirts.</p><p></p><p>Then we dug some more. The compnay we THOUGHT was pulling the strings, Company A, is merely a family-owned company (a shell?). All along it's been Company C.</p><p></p><p>ANother interesting snippet - whenever easy child 2/difficult child 2 has changed her work conditions (such as part-time to full-time, and back again) she has been given a new contract. This COULD mean that she has NOT been working for them for over three years. She hasn't been on the same contract for that long. So they may try to use that to say she isn't entitled to the retrenchment package.</p><p></p><p>I'm avoiding using the official word, but retrenchment means the same thing - being let go because they can no longer afford to keep you on, or because the company is folding, or downsizing. It means being laid off. And in our legislation, it is different to being sacked. However, as I understand it, this IS actually a sacking (where they want this person to leave and it's personal - either they're a bad worker, or a problem in some other way). In this case, she clashed with her boss who is very controlling, and when she tried to complain through legal official channels and resolve the issues, she was penalised (illegal). For her to be sacked for these reasons is illegal. But she only has two weeks to put in the paperwork and as far as THEY know, she hasn't got that time. But just in case, they are soothing her down and telling (verbally) it's retrenchment. "We're letting you go".</p><p></p><p>SHe was told that Company B (which we had all believed was a small, struggling new branch - now know to be a name and nothing more) has been sold and will be in new hands in two weeks "and they can't afford to keep everybody on". </p><p></p><p>This morning husband found some clues online. Company C shows activity such as changes in address, changes in management etc over the last year. About a month ago there was a change in address. Two weeks ago, a change in the board. Company C - the one big one which has been paying her payslips all these years while she worked at Company A and then Company B. </p><p></p><p>So it does look like there HAVE been some possible changes in ownership over the last two weeks. But on a bigger scale. However, the same big fish seem to be running it all.</p><p></p><p>It seems we can't file paperwork today after all, however. This new information needs to be processed, to make sure they can't wiggle out of it. husband & I need to go over easy child 2/difficult child 2's paperwork with a fine tooth comb.</p><p></p><p>husband expressed the concern that easy child 2/difficult child 2 has been (on paper) employed by a shell company from the time she transferred to the new store. And that it could mean they could wiggle out of legal responsibility. But a recent big legal case in Australia, a liability case of Hardy's which set up a shell company to be legally responsible for a lot of people suffering from asbestosis who found that all the funds court-ordered to be set aside for compensation, had evaporated as the shell company declared bankruptcy. SO the courts went after the parent company (which had mostly the same directors as the shell). And the courts ruled that the parent company was responsible.</p><p></p><p>When I talked to the ombudsman yesterday (the government officer who directs the legislation we have to protect people in various waya) I was told that the ombudsman would go after a parent company if the claim was made that easy child 2/difficult child 2 had only worked for the shell, not te parent group. Or had no longer worked for the parent company when she transferred to the shell.</p><p></p><p>But I need to talk to the government man again - it seems that easy child 2/difficult child 2's change of contract every time she changed status (part-time to fulltime and back) could have amounted to new workplace agreements each time, and hence she became a new employee.</p><p></p><p>It's technical. They undoubtledly will try it. It could mean a big legal fight. But she shouldn't need to pay for legal representation, this will be the government on easy child 2/difficult child 2's behalf vs the company, not easy child 2/difficult child 2 herself against the company.</p><p></p><p>There are times when I LOVE this country!</p><p></p><p>And at the risk of getting political, I gather the US government is planning to make some changes to bring some legislation more into line with things like we have (health, for example). I hope this is right and any benefits we have that you do not yet have, could be winging your way.</p><p></p><p>Our previous government was inthe process of whittling away (OK, chainsawing) at worker's rights. True, there have been times when I felt the unions had gone way too far and employers were hamstrung. But it swung way too far, to ridiculous levels (where an employer could literally do anything, and if you didn't want to do it you lost your job). The rule book got totally thrown out, except for basic human rights (the drink of water issue). And the human rights stuff was just about useless because an employer could terminate an employee at any time, for any reason or no reason. No more minimum wage either.</p><p></p><p>Things are not yet back to normal, but thankfully back far enough to protect easy child 2/difficult child 2 (who anyway began work with this company before the dangerous cuts to work legislation, cynically labelled "Work Choices" by our previous government).</p><p></p><p>Work Choices is in the final stage of being erased. Legislation is changing a lot in a short time, it's tricky keeping up with it. But at the moment al lthe changes are directed towards reinstating worker's rights.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for your support, folks. I'll keep you updated.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 307442, member: 1991"] Abbey, check your laws. For us in Australia, it's a basic human rights thing - within reason, toilet breaks are NOT part of the "15 minute break" thing. Of course if you are in a position where someone has to be there, you do have to schedule it so things continue to function. Go online and see if there is general OH&S legislation in your state/country that covers this. Similarly, access to water. For us, employers MUST allow free access to potable water for all employees. If the employer doesn't want te employee to leave work station to go have a drink of water, then they have to allow the employee to have a water bottle with them. For easy child 2/difficult child 2's boss to insist she nott have a drink of water while a customer could see it, is ludicrous. Head office responded to her concerns over this and asked her to compromise and not have a swig of water while actually serving a customer, but to wait in between customers. Which of course is common sense. And also perfectly legal. husband & I have been digging. We rang her this morning to get the official business numbers (like a business social security number, it tells a great deal about the company). We asked her for the name of the company, and the number, on her pay slips. And it seems we've had things backwards (or they've given their staff deliberately the backwards info). According towhat we have understood, easy child 2/difficult child 2 originally worked for Company A while at the other end of the store was a rival business. Then rival business went bust. Company A bought the lease on the site and opened up, but NOT with the same uniforms etc as Company A. No, the uniforms were a different colour with a different name on them. easy child 2/difficult child 2 told us, "It's the same company, they've actually asked me to transfer up there as supervisor which would be a promotion. I'm not sure I can while I still live at home, I told them, but I'm happy to be acting supervisor while they get started." During that trial period, easy child 2/difficult child 2 & BF2 found a flat and moved out. The company also hired a girl who had been supervisor for the previous (now out of business) rival company. I was glad to see her back in the same sort of job in the same place. She's a nice girl. All the time, we were told to keep it secret that the new place, Company B, was owned by Company A. Whenever easy child 2/difficult child 2 had to contact Head Office, it was answered with, "Company A" and emails were headed "Company A". As I understand it. However, there is another company name in there, Company C. When I began my digging, I found that Company A is listed as a family-owned company. A big family - there are branches all round Sydney, about 5 of them. Now I just spoke to easy child 2/difficult child 2 (still sleepy, had a rough night - understandable) and the information on her pay slips says, "Company C". With husband's expertise now in the equation, we did more digging. It seems there have been some interesting changes to Company C. It also seems that they own Company A and Company B. Company B in fact only exists as a name, no location given. Which means that all the money etc, actually is handled by either A or C. B is a front. A label on some girls' work shirts. Then we dug some more. The compnay we THOUGHT was pulling the strings, Company A, is merely a family-owned company (a shell?). All along it's been Company C. ANother interesting snippet - whenever easy child 2/difficult child 2 has changed her work conditions (such as part-time to full-time, and back again) she has been given a new contract. This COULD mean that she has NOT been working for them for over three years. She hasn't been on the same contract for that long. So they may try to use that to say she isn't entitled to the retrenchment package. I'm avoiding using the official word, but retrenchment means the same thing - being let go because they can no longer afford to keep you on, or because the company is folding, or downsizing. It means being laid off. And in our legislation, it is different to being sacked. However, as I understand it, this IS actually a sacking (where they want this person to leave and it's personal - either they're a bad worker, or a problem in some other way). In this case, she clashed with her boss who is very controlling, and when she tried to complain through legal official channels and resolve the issues, she was penalised (illegal). For her to be sacked for these reasons is illegal. But she only has two weeks to put in the paperwork and as far as THEY know, she hasn't got that time. But just in case, they are soothing her down and telling (verbally) it's retrenchment. "We're letting you go". SHe was told that Company B (which we had all believed was a small, struggling new branch - now know to be a name and nothing more) has been sold and will be in new hands in two weeks "and they can't afford to keep everybody on". This morning husband found some clues online. Company C shows activity such as changes in address, changes in management etc over the last year. About a month ago there was a change in address. Two weeks ago, a change in the board. Company C - the one big one which has been paying her payslips all these years while she worked at Company A and then Company B. So it does look like there HAVE been some possible changes in ownership over the last two weeks. But on a bigger scale. However, the same big fish seem to be running it all. It seems we can't file paperwork today after all, however. This new information needs to be processed, to make sure they can't wiggle out of it. husband & I need to go over easy child 2/difficult child 2's paperwork with a fine tooth comb. husband expressed the concern that easy child 2/difficult child 2 has been (on paper) employed by a shell company from the time she transferred to the new store. And that it could mean they could wiggle out of legal responsibility. But a recent big legal case in Australia, a liability case of Hardy's which set up a shell company to be legally responsible for a lot of people suffering from asbestosis who found that all the funds court-ordered to be set aside for compensation, had evaporated as the shell company declared bankruptcy. SO the courts went after the parent company (which had mostly the same directors as the shell). And the courts ruled that the parent company was responsible. When I talked to the ombudsman yesterday (the government officer who directs the legislation we have to protect people in various waya) I was told that the ombudsman would go after a parent company if the claim was made that easy child 2/difficult child 2 had only worked for the shell, not te parent group. Or had no longer worked for the parent company when she transferred to the shell. But I need to talk to the government man again - it seems that easy child 2/difficult child 2's change of contract every time she changed status (part-time to fulltime and back) could have amounted to new workplace agreements each time, and hence she became a new employee. It's technical. They undoubtledly will try it. It could mean a big legal fight. But she shouldn't need to pay for legal representation, this will be the government on easy child 2/difficult child 2's behalf vs the company, not easy child 2/difficult child 2 herself against the company. There are times when I LOVE this country! And at the risk of getting political, I gather the US government is planning to make some changes to bring some legislation more into line with things like we have (health, for example). I hope this is right and any benefits we have that you do not yet have, could be winging your way. Our previous government was inthe process of whittling away (OK, chainsawing) at worker's rights. True, there have been times when I felt the unions had gone way too far and employers were hamstrung. But it swung way too far, to ridiculous levels (where an employer could literally do anything, and if you didn't want to do it you lost your job). The rule book got totally thrown out, except for basic human rights (the drink of water issue). And the human rights stuff was just about useless because an employer could terminate an employee at any time, for any reason or no reason. No more minimum wage either. Things are not yet back to normal, but thankfully back far enough to protect easy child 2/difficult child 2 (who anyway began work with this company before the dangerous cuts to work legislation, cynically labelled "Work Choices" by our previous government). Work Choices is in the final stage of being erased. Legislation is changing a lot in a short time, it's tricky keeping up with it. But at the moment al lthe changes are directed towards reinstating worker's rights. Thanks for your support, folks. I'll keep you updated. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
easy child 2/difficult child 2 got sacked!
Top