Employers duty of care

[smithy]

Is anyone on here boffed up with rules regarding an employers duty of care to an employee and their family?

Recently my daughter was very ill with a 24hr bug.
10pm that night my Mrs asked to leave work an hour early ( she was due to work 7am - 10.30am) as I had work and no other person to look after her.
She got a spray from her boss saying " if she doesn't want to work just say so etc etc,,, you've asked for new years and christmas eve off blah blah blah.....(which she had asked for in March so it hasn't been a problem the previous 8 months)

She turned up for work the next morning and preceded to get a mouthful of abuse from her bosses ( a husband and wife team) about asking for time off, don't yell at us over the phone, (she didn't, she was upset they weren't understanding towards a sick child and her predicament and was worried who was going to look after our daughter)) to the stage where she ended up getting so upset and crying..
She worked until roughly the time she said she would and went home, eventually quitting later that afternoon..

We found out today that the bosses have also been giving other staff a hard time about asking for time off despite months in advance warning...Unfortunately all the staff are casual and their is no union representation.

Any ideas?

[MatteeG]

Smithy your mrs doesnt work for a kitchen mob does she?

[bulldogproud]

Smithy, sorry to hear of the horrible experience suffered by your wife.
This is exactly why many of us voted in a Labor government - this soon will not be able to occur without repercussions for the employer!
Cheers

[smac]

There is nothing in Labors plans to remove dickhead bosses bdp.

Is seeking an alternate employer an option smithy? They sound like the kind of people worth NOT knowing.

[bulldogproud]

Smac, bosses of that nature may exist. However, you will be able to take legal action against them.
Cheers

[smithy]

Smithy your mrs doesnt work for a kitchen mob does she?

Indeed she does Mattee..

Waitress/Kitchen Hand/ CLeaner

[smithy]

There is nothing in Labors plans to remove dickhead bosses bdp.

Is seeking an alternate employer an option smithy? They sound like the kind of people worth NOT knowing.

Unfortunately smac.. where we live employment is a very valuable thing to have and I think most employers exploit that fact..

The ombudsman were sympathetic but couldn't do much except give me a number for "women in work" which I think is a "union" for non union members if that makes sense.

[MW]

Yeah this is common amongst small business unfortunately...it's their way of forcing someone resigning rather than paying redundancy

[smithy]

No redundancy for casuals ? Or have I missed something..

[MW]

casual...sorry should of read the post more carefully!
Even so, they need "some" sort of grounds for dismissal surely, just easier to make life miserable for their employees and it will take care of itself.
My missus went through the same thing at a bakery when she was in Uni

[bulldogproud]

Unfortunately, under current IR regulations employers with less than 100 employees (90% of private businesses) need no reason to dismiss a worker.

[Dutchy]

Smac, bosses of that nature may exist. However, you will be able to take legal action against them.
Cheers

Great

[Hondo]

Unfortunately, under current IR regulations employers with less than 100 employees (90% of private businesses) need no reason to dismiss a worker.

That's not true. Don't get sucked in to all the Union talk

There's a difference between a claim for unfair dismissal and a claim if you have been sacked on grounds of discrimination. Under the current laws, regardless of the size of the company (15 or 100 or 100,000) you can still bring a claim if you have been sacked for a discriminatory reason (race, gender, sexual orientation, age, pregnancy, religion, parental leave etc).

The 100-employee exemption was designed to help small businesses by not forcing them to go through the long-winded and expensive 3-warning process if they have no choice but to let someone go (ie, downturn in business). The old unfair dismissal laws made it too easy for ex-employees to make dodgy claims to the tribunal which happened way too often ask any IR lawyer. It forces small businesses to put people on as casuals instead of full-time.

And don't get sucked in to thinking that Labor's new IR laws will magically sort out the sort of dodgy employer tactics suffered by poor Mrs Smithy .... that is a disgrace under any system. Smithy I think quitting is the best thing she could have done. If you want some restitution I suggest a phone call to an IR lawyer forget the ombudsman.

[bulldogproud]

Hondo, it is virtually impossible to prove that your employer was sacking you because of discriminatory reasons. In other words, employers can sack anyone whenever they want for whatever reason they want. Even if it was for discriminatory reasons, they just simply have to say that your work performance was not up to scratch.
The current IR system simply treats employees as resources, not as people. Thankfully there are some decent bosses out there who do see employees as people. However, those who want to see them simply as resources can and do.
Cheers

[Hondo]

Hondo, it is virtually impossible to prove that your employer was sacking you because of discriminatory reasons.

That's simply not true anyone who was sacked like that should definitely ring an IR lawyer as I suggested to Smithy you'd be surprised what getting the right legal support can do. Employers becoming suddenly less tough when the legal letter arrives

[bulldogproud]

Hondo, what discriminatory reason was there? Unless we could come up with one, and prove it, even an IR lawyer cannot get around the law.... or can they?
Cheers

[smithy]

Thanks Hondo,,,
I would like to reiterate that she quit because of her employers attitude, not sacked..
And I back her 100% fo quitting too even though it's a bad time of the year to be leaving a job..
From what I have gathered Hondo, you are right, it doesn't matter if there is 10 or 1000 employees we all have rights, even those that resign..
It's the poor buggers that get sacked and immediately put on a smaller wage that people might be getting confused about.
There is apparently a law protecting employees that resign due to harassment and that is what I am currently exploring.
Though this is a one off, harassment will be hard to prove but if we can prove that her boss was totally unreasonable towards a family illness then maybe I have a case towards some compensation..
I am also going to issue him with a letter stating we want wages for the "unpaid training" she did 2 years ago.... It was a case of 3 shifts unpaid training or you don't get the job...

She did 3 shifts on kitchen hand, cleaning and pizzas each, and although I can't prove the exact amount of hours she did for free, the minimum hours per shif under her award is 2 hours, so I'll be trying to get 18 hours out of him..
If anyone read last saturdays careers paper they would've read it was illegal for ANYONE to work for free...
As for the lawyer Hondo,,,, thanks for that,,, I'll certainly keep it mind if it comes to that..

[smithy]

I rang the IR court and commission and they said that they were basically a mediator if things couldn't get resolved between 2 parties....

If things needed to go further than that I am not sure..

[bulldogproud]

Smithy, I wish you and your wife every success in getting some justice. This is what I hated about the IR laws the Liberal Party introduced. However, enough politicising of it, just pray for justice.
Cheers

[smithy]

Thanks bulldogproud, I really don;'t think it matters who is in power or what rules were applied though,,,, the guy is a jerk ( I'm being polite) and was totally unsupportive to a dedicated worker of 2 years who wanted to leave work 1 hour early to attend to a sick child..