21st July 17:59
I don't know anything about labour law - not had any experience with
I retrenched a worker at the old age home where I was the
administrator in the dark ages - was taken to arbitration and made
to pay an extra month's notice and was warned that I would not be
able to replace her (for two years, I think) without offering her
the job. I made excellent plans which skirted the spirit of the law
not to replace her as she'd been a horrible surly thing with a very
bad attitude. But another expert represented the old age home at
the hearing. I was always quite vague about the process and really
had believed that I had paid her everything to which she was
entitled before the hearing.
We've had a few jokes about it on this forum recently.
However, a few days ago a friend announced that the entire staff of
the branch of a restaurant had been suspended.
Today I drove one of the workers to the hearing. They scheduled the
hearing for all the staff at exactly the same time despite the fact
that each one was going to be "tried" separately. Three hours later
I left without the worker. That is exceptionally boorish behaviour
on the part of the company, in my opinion.
I understand that they were not allowed to be represented by
lawyers?????? Only another member of staff. This is a ruling in
some military organisations, but one would think it would be against
human rights in the free market?
Then, in an interesting twist, the management of the branch, who are
being accused by the accused, seem to be conducting the hearings.
This seems *very* strange to me. Especially when one hears from the
workers that are probably not involved that there is no way that a
fraud of that nature could have been perpetrated without management
being in on it, so if it happened management would automatically be
Then, and this one is very interesting, the person who reported the
whole scam has been named. Now I think that all accusations should
have to be publically made (I would never report anyone if I were
not prepared to be named), but where one has apparently made an
anonymous tip, then one should not be named, but the thing should be
independently verified and only then should action be taken. I'm
not sure if I've made myself clear on the difference in my mind
between the two.
Anyway, it's left an unpleasant taste in my mouth. It smacks of
Moira, the Faerie Godmother