Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 96905	2009-01-28 10:35:00	Employment Relations	roddy_boy (4115)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
742748	2009-01-30 08:43:00	[QUOTE=Marnie;750488]I used to work in a business where those of us who handled cash (and am talking many thousands of dollars each day) were paid a 'cashier's allowance', it really was a pittance, but if you were 'under' at the end of the day then you paid. It didn't happen often and was usually only a few cents. If you were 'over' then it had to be banked. I used to wonder whether the tightwads used the overs to pay the allowance, which was uniform for all cash handlers, whether they dealt with thousands or only a few dollars. Thats is so totally unfair having to pay for unders and bank overs. I hope they dont still do dumb stuff like this.	prefect (6291)
742749	2009-01-30 09:37:00	It takes two people to put mail into bags? :thumbs: It takes more than two people when there's a lot of mail. So I had my meeting this evening, was fairly uneventful, it was only with my shift supervisor and my "team leader," so they couldn't really follow my arguments at all, I have a meeting next week to discuss it with a more senior person. I had also noticed an inconsistency in my contract which I brought up, but again they couldn't really do much about it so I thought I'd ask for info here regarding it before my meeting next week. There are two different paragraphs in my contract which deal with the same thing in my opinion. In the contract there is mention of redundancy, and the pay that will be given in the event of redundancy. However, in an appendix, there is mention of "No Assurance of Continuity," which details what will happen if "..the position held by the Employee is no longer required by the company because of changes which have been made...", and gives a lower payout than the redundancy section. What is the difference between the two situations?	roddy_boy (4115)
742750	2009-01-30 10:01:00	Can you scan & PM me the contract? I'd be quite happy to nitpick it for you, although note I'm not a lawyer (and note also that I think we have very different viewpoints).	Erayd (23)
742751	2009-01-30 10:09:00	There are two different paragraphs in my contract which deal with the same thing in my opinion. In the contract there is mention of redundancy, and the pay that will be given in the event of redundancy. However, in an appendix, there is mention of "No Assurance of Continuity," which details what will happen if "..the position held by the Employee is no longer required by the company because of changes which have been made...", and gives a lower payout than the redundancy section. What is the difference between the two situations? Good question. You should ask for a (written) explanation before you think about signing the contract. Also, an employment lawyer's opinion about the contract might cost you $250 or so (less than a year's union membership...) Might be money well spent - you can be damn sure that they spent more on lawyers on getting it drafted...	Deane F (8204)
742752	2009-01-30 10:40:00	Well unions IMO would be better cos they can mediate. Lawyers for that would be extra fees...... The two situations: By law there is no redundancy provisions if you are not a permanent employee unless your contract specifically says so. If you are a fixed term or a casual or temp staff there is no redundancy payout other than from good faith. If you are a permanent employee I think you get 4 weeks or so .... refer to the Employment Relations Act. Restructure or whatever measure that leads to you without a job. Not sure when it says a lower payout. Vaguely to me no assurance of continuity might mean that if you are a temp or fixed term or casual staff they tend to say no gaurantee of further employment past this date (specified in your contract) or as "usual" for a temp staff that there is no redundancy for these policy holders. So this might mean for non perm staff, that the redundancy payout may be less than the redudancy section, in other words it could be "zero". Assuming the redundancy section above applies to perm staff.	Nomad (952)
742753	2009-01-30 10:50:00	[QUOTE=prefect;750830 Thats is so totally unfair having to pay for unders and bank overs. I hope they dont still do dumb stuff like this QUOTE] That organisation no longer exists. The old story of small fish being swallowed by larger fish and they, in turn, being swallowed by even larger fish and so on. Solmeister is right in that it does indicate a sense of lack of trust. However, that was the case and must have been sanctioned by the union at the time.	Marnie (4574)
742754	2009-01-30 11:02:00	What it sounds to me is that you have a generic contract. That is given to all employees regardless of what contract they have. So you need to suss out what is relevant to you ... Perm staff gets redundancy section, if you are not perm - you can ignore this section. Unless of course in your letter of offer where it state your name and pay - it says you get this redundancy payout. Restructure. No continuity etc etc.. To me just means no futher employment to a specified date (non perm staff). Specified in the contract. When it says less than redundancy. To me it could mean zero, it could be whatever it says in contract if it does at all ... or the amount that you or yoru union or lawyer mediate for you and get an amount - that line may just say if you get mediation out of it, it won't be more than what perm staff gets (under the redundancy section). Pretty cunning clause if you ask me. To put it in a spin, if you have a non perm contract and your contract does not say why it would end and why for a temp or fixed term staff - you can challenge it, in some cases without that, that clause may be void and you may be treated as a ongoing perm staff cos they stuffed up.	Nomad (952)
742755	2009-01-31 03:10:00	Just a question: How much are they wanting you to pay? Surely to courier an item to someone (depending on size/weight) it can't be that much?	--Wolf-- (128)
1 2 3 4 5