July 1, 2024 • 15 mins
Gareth Abdinor is an Employment, Workplace & Information Expert.
He regularly joins Simon Barnett and James Daniels to answer listeners' employment related questions.
Today, tight times, restructuring, and reduced hours, among other things.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Simon Barnett and James Daniels Afternoons
podcast from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
In studio with us Gareth abdn or our employment, Workplace
and Information expert. He joins us every fortnight. As you know,
he's back with us today, Gareth.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Gooday, guys, I mate, you're.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
A popular man. Gareth. The text machine is pouring in
here and we haven't even started.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
All right.
Speaker 5 (00:26):
Pat has text and said, Hi, Gareth, can an employer
require an employee to have their own cover for sickness?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Yeah? So, I often see this, but it's not legal.
In a lot of small organizations, small employers without too
many staff, they do try and require employees to get
someone else to cover their shift when they're sick. M
(00:56):
But no, you can't require that. That's not reasonable.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Okay, this is a reasonably detailed question, Gareth. But it's
a good one. I reckon. Hi, Gareth, employer has decided
to have a structure, not restructure. They have presented a
proposal to our team of four account managers and said, quote,
this is just a proposal. There is nothing predetermined, and
this is not a cost cutting measure. Their proposal means
(01:21):
losing one account manager. They said they welcomed any questions
over two weeks, which was last Thursday. I sent in
questions twice, but they haven't answered me. They have submitted
from that, they have submitted on from that, and even
less respect. Can I raise concerns again about my questions
not being answered?
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Well, yeah, you definitely can raise concerns again. And I
think in this situation, the employers running dangerously close to
breaching their good faith obligations. I smiled at that. They
do in a structure, not a restructure. I don't think
there's much of a difference between those, other than saving
a couple of letters. Yeah, but yes, if you provide feedback,
(02:02):
the employer has to engage with that feedback. They don't
have to accept it, but they do have to consider
it and come back to you on it.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
Okay, okay, we get this occasionally, and but it's just
coming again. How robust are restraint of trade clauses within contracts?
I got a contract that says I can't work within
the same industry in a similar role for a period
of six months.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Yeah, you're right. This does come up all the time, JDA,
and I guess you can't generalize with them because it
all comes down to the particular situation and the particular clause.
It is very fact dependent and so it depends on
what is the industry, what does this person do? What
is the geographic area that the restraint covers. You know,
(02:48):
if you're a hairdresser in christ Church, an employer is
not going to be able to enforce a restraint against
you that prevents you from cutting here in Auckland, it's
just not going to fly.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
What would be the most widely accepted restraint. Now, I'd
heard that six months was kind of a real push
for any business.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Really, yeah, I mean there are these these rules of
thumb that you know, three months is often seen as
been a reasonable period. The geographic area can't be any
more than reasonable. So, you know, if you've got a
very localized job like hairdressing, for example, it's going to
be very difficult to apply that outside of the town
(03:29):
that you're in. And you know, some jobs there just
is no legitimate interest that you're protecting. You don't have
any dealings with customers or suppliers or anything like that.
The problem is that, you know, most employers just have
a boiler plate or standard austraint they stick in every
(03:50):
agreement and then when push comes to shop they might
have difficulties.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Actually on that. This is quite specific, but it's to
your question James that you answered Gareth. Hi, Gareth, I'm
a contract driver for a logistics company. We own our
company trucks. What we own our own tracks effectively, and
we cannot drive for anyone else as we are signed
written for the said company. Are we contract drivers or employees?
(04:15):
Were earned by what we deliver and pick up for
the company. We bear all costs regarding our trucks and taxes.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Yeah, this is a tricky one and it's perplexed the
courts for many years. We had the Supreme Court get
involved back when the Lord of the Rings films were
being filmed in and they even wrote some special legislation
to cover the film industry.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
It really comes down to is this person actually in
business on their own account or not? And what we
often see as we see some factors that suggest they
employees and some factors that suggest they actually in business
on their own accounts. So are they are they invoicing
the company? Are they taking the tax benefits of being
(05:04):
self employed? Again, just like the restraint question. This is
one that it's impossible to generalize, and it really comes
down to looking at all of those factors. And you know,
sometimes people disagree, like we've seen it go through several
levels of the courts, and even the courts don't agree.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Right tricky on good a Trev.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
Hey, how's it going?
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Good?
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Mate?
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Thank you? Gareth standing by?
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Oh? Thank you?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Fire away?
Speaker 4 (05:32):
Hi are you there? Gareth?
Speaker 3 (05:34):
I sure I am.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
How are you good?
Speaker 6 (05:36):
Good?
Speaker 3 (05:37):
How can we help?
Speaker 4 (05:38):
I've just got a question. I work in a little
well known resort town in the North Island and I'm
on a permanent part time contract with a minimum of
twenty eight but we've recently had a lot of things
like power cuts and all this sort of stuff, and
(05:59):
I've been told to go home early and haven't been
paid the twenty eight hours on my minimum contract. I'm
just wondering if they're enough to do that.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
Now, that's a great question, and Trev this comes up
quite often as well. Technically, you should be entitled to
the minimum hours in your contract, and so taking this
strict approach, you should be paid at least twenty hours
a week, even if there isn't twenty eight hours of work.
That's it. Sometimes it does pay to take a reasonable
(06:33):
approach because if things are happening to your employer that
are outside of their control, like power pylons falling over
or things of that nature, if you take this strictly
legal approach, you may win the battle but lose the war.
Because understood a lot of businesses are struggling, especially with
(06:55):
the economy and inflation and stuff like that, and the
employees that make sure they get absolutely everything they are
entitled to and then sometimes find themselves out of her job.
So sometimes it is worth working with your employer. They
may not realize that they actually have to pay you
(07:17):
the minimum hours in your contract. So as always, you know,
it's worth having a chat with your employer, be as
constructive as possible and see if you can come to
some sort of arrangement that you can both live with.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Right, Okay, No, that's some good advice. Thank you very
much for that.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
You're welcome all the best.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Thanks very much, Trevor for calling.
Speaker 5 (07:35):
Got a text here from Amanda saying, Hi, Gareth, and
there are a few numbers in here. My daughter's at
a cafe. She's been there for nearly two years. She's
on a permanent contract with a minimum of fourteen hours.
The last thirteen months, she's worked thirty hours per week
and loves it. She had it run in with the
supervisor and now has had her hours reduced to seventeen
(07:56):
per week as of last week. The owner has said
it's to manage her errors. She's never had a performance
review nor been given a training plan. What the heck
can you help please this?
Speaker 3 (08:06):
Yeah? So this often happens where someone starts off on
a relatively limited number of hours and then the hours
grow and they stay at an increased number for an
extended period of time. I think after a year of
working thirty hours, I think it was thirty Yep. This
person's got a very strong case that her hours are
(08:29):
actually now thirty hours a week and they can only
be reduced by agreement. So I think she's got some
leverage here.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
So if she goes to them and says, I've had advice, yep,
I've worked thirty hours for a year. Technically there had
to be agreement to reduce me to seventeen, and they go, sorry,
it's seventeen. What happens? Then?
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Then she's got a personal a grievance. I mean, at
a minimum, if they've reduced her hours because she's had
a run in and we don't know exactly what the
running is, but a run in with the supervisor, that
seems unreasonable as well, because that's punishment, and you can't
punish someone by reducing their hours.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
So she should gently go to them and say, look,
as the first step, thirty hours is what we you know,
you need to agree otherwise otherwise? Can she then say otherwise?
I think I'm going to be forced to take a
personal grievance?
Speaker 3 (09:19):
Yes, she could, you know, I find it interesting that
the employers now saying this is to manage the employee's
errors or have they been raised previously? If they haven't,
why not good? So there's a few red flags there.
Speaker 5 (09:34):
What happens with personal grievance is do you know, do
people win them for one of a better term?
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Yeah? I guess There's been a whole industry created with
advocates raise grievances for people. When most of them settle
and the advocate clips the ticket, set out of court, Yeah,
set out of court. It gets a bit more tricky
if the person actually wants to stay, and often people
(10:01):
want to stay. They want to fix the relationship. The
system supposedly designed for that, but practice it doesn't often work.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Okay, thanks Josh, thank you very much for waiting, Garret.
Speaker 6 (10:10):
It's all is no way thanks So Yeah. Company I'm
working for, like a lot of businesses, are very slow
at the moment, and they had a meeting with us
all and told that two of us had to reduce
hours by three and a half hours a week. The
(10:31):
funny thing was they had me doing some papers and
unemployment stuff just the week before, and one of the
things I read was it had to be done by
that employer can't reduce her hours without consultation. I was
actually quite happy to help the company out by reducing
my hours to help the company. However, they never put
(10:52):
anything in writing to us, and I didn't know when
it was startying, how long it was going to be
for etc. And the other thing was I wanted to
negotiate the hours that I could have off. For example,
if I finished it one instead of finishing at four
thirty one day a week, I could finish at one
o'clock because I could make the money up by working
(11:13):
for a second job I have.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Yeah, I mean that all sounds very reasonable. And I'll
be inclined to go back to your employer and make
those points. Oh well, I think they're in a precarious
position then, because you're right, you can't just force someone
(11:35):
to reduce their hours. That it has to be either
as part of a restructure, so there's consultation, feedback and
then a decision, or it has to be by agreement. Now,
if they've just reduced your hours and there was no
agreement as to when that would be, which days, the
beginning of the day, the end of the day, any
of that sort of stuff, it sounds like they've acted
(11:57):
you noilaterally without agreement, and you've got good grounds for acclaim.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Yeah, Josh, very best of luck to you, Thanks for
raising question. Thank you, mate. You Hello Mitchell, Mitchell a
biggie pattern.
Speaker 6 (12:12):
Yeah, how are you? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (12:14):
Good, good, good good.
Speaker 6 (12:15):
My wife works as a nurse for a DHV in
a casual fall and I'm just wondering, at what point
does casual become permanent.
Speaker 3 (12:25):
Yeah, that's that's a very good question, Mitchel. And it's
kind of like asking how long is a piece of string.
There's no set definition, and casual employment is generally described
as being employment that is infrequent and irregular, and so
(12:50):
I generally take the approach that as soon as it
becomes frequent and or regular, then you're you're kind of
verging into a permanent part time perhaps with no fixed hours,
but not casual. And I think there's a lot of
people in New Zealand that ostensibly on a casual contract
(13:12):
that aren't casual employees. Yeah, so I hope that helps.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Thanks, Mitchell, appreciate it very much. Quick text before we
finish up. Gareth, Hi, mate, I'm on acc I have
been for five weeks. ACC want me off work for
another two to three months. The accident happened at my
place of work and was a result of faulty items.
Does my employer need to keep my role open? So
has been?
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Yeah, it really depends on what sort of business it is,
what the role is, and then what the court would
consider to be a reasonable period. Now after an extended absence,
and that's going to be different for every sort of job.
After an extended absence, an employer can start consulting on
(14:04):
terminating for medical incapacity or medical as absence after how long, Well,
it really depends. So if you if you work for
a very large organization where someone could absorb the work
that you do in the meantime, that period's likely to
be longer. If you work in a business with two
employees and they actually can't cope without having someone in
(14:28):
that role, the period's likely to be a lot shorter.
So it's really difficult to know.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Maybe text it. Could you text us back and tell
us what you did. And we've only got thirty seconds
before Garth shoots the building because he's on the clock,
you know, and we have to pay him, just jokes.
He does it all for free because he's a good man.
Speaker 5 (14:45):
He does it for cash.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Yeah, but if you could text us then and tell
us what you do, it might help. But we're pretty
much out of time, so I.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Mean, three months is quite a short period to terminate
for absence, is it you? You could potentially do it,
but it's at the shorter edge.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Okay, all right, Hey Gareth, thank you as always, mate,
Really good to get you in. Thanks my pleasure and
a reminder, folks, the content of this segment is general
in nature and is not legal advice. Any information discussed
is not intended to be a substitute for obtaining specific
professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
For more from Simon Barnett and James Daniels afternoons, listen
live to news Talks at B or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Simon Barnett and James Daniels Afternoons
podcast from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
In studio with us Gareth abdn or our employment, Workplace
and Information expert. He joins us every fortnight. As you know,
he's back with us today, Gareth.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Gooday, guys, I mate, you're.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
A popular man. Gareth. The text machine is pouring in
here and we haven't even started.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
All right.
Speaker 5 (00:26):
Pat has text and said, Hi, Gareth, can an employer
require an employee to have their own cover for sickness?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Yeah? So, I often see this, but it's not legal.
In a lot of small organizations, small employers without too
many staff, they do try and require employees to get
someone else to cover their shift when they're sick. M
(00:56):
But no, you can't require that. That's not reasonable.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Okay, this is a reasonably detailed question, Gareth. But it's
a good one. I reckon. Hi, Gareth, employer has decided
to have a structure, not restructure. They have presented a
proposal to our team of four account managers and said, quote,
this is just a proposal. There is nothing predetermined, and
this is not a cost cutting measure. Their proposal means
(01:21):
losing one account manager. They said they welcomed any questions
over two weeks, which was last Thursday. I sent in
questions twice, but they haven't answered me. They have submitted
from that, they have submitted on from that, and even
less respect. Can I raise concerns again about my questions
not being answered?
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Well, yeah, you definitely can raise concerns again. And I
think in this situation, the employers running dangerously close to
breaching their good faith obligations. I smiled at that. They
do in a structure, not a restructure. I don't think
there's much of a difference between those, other than saving
a couple of letters. Yeah, but yes, if you provide feedback,
(02:02):
the employer has to engage with that feedback. They don't
have to accept it, but they do have to consider
it and come back to you on it.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
Okay, okay, we get this occasionally, and but it's just
coming again. How robust are restraint of trade clauses within contracts?
I got a contract that says I can't work within
the same industry in a similar role for a period
of six months.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Yeah, you're right. This does come up all the time, JDA,
and I guess you can't generalize with them because it
all comes down to the particular situation and the particular clause.
It is very fact dependent and so it depends on
what is the industry, what does this person do? What
is the geographic area that the restraint covers. You know,
(02:48):
if you're a hairdresser in christ Church, an employer is
not going to be able to enforce a restraint against
you that prevents you from cutting here in Auckland, it's
just not going to fly.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
What would be the most widely accepted restraint. Now, I'd
heard that six months was kind of a real push
for any business.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Really, yeah, I mean there are these these rules of
thumb that you know, three months is often seen as
been a reasonable period. The geographic area can't be any
more than reasonable. So, you know, if you've got a
very localized job like hairdressing, for example, it's going to
be very difficult to apply that outside of the town
(03:29):
that you're in. And you know, some jobs there just
is no legitimate interest that you're protecting. You don't have
any dealings with customers or suppliers or anything like that.
The problem is that, you know, most employers just have
a boiler plate or standard austraint they stick in every
(03:50):
agreement and then when push comes to shop they might
have difficulties.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Actually on that. This is quite specific, but it's to
your question James that you answered Gareth. Hi, Gareth, I'm
a contract driver for a logistics company. We own our
company trucks. What we own our own tracks effectively, and
we cannot drive for anyone else as we are signed
written for the said company. Are we contract drivers or employees?
(04:15):
Were earned by what we deliver and pick up for
the company. We bear all costs regarding our trucks and taxes.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Yeah, this is a tricky one and it's perplexed the
courts for many years. We had the Supreme Court get
involved back when the Lord of the Rings films were
being filmed in and they even wrote some special legislation
to cover the film industry.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
It really comes down to is this person actually in
business on their own account or not? And what we
often see as we see some factors that suggest they
employees and some factors that suggest they actually in business
on their own accounts. So are they are they invoicing
the company? Are they taking the tax benefits of being
(05:04):
self employed? Again, just like the restraint question. This is
one that it's impossible to generalize, and it really comes
down to looking at all of those factors. And you know,
sometimes people disagree, like we've seen it go through several
levels of the courts, and even the courts don't agree.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Right tricky on good a Trev.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
Hey, how's it going?
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Good?
Speaker 1 (05:26):
Mate?
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Thank you? Gareth standing by?
Speaker 4 (05:29):
Oh? Thank you?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Fire away?
Speaker 4 (05:32):
Hi are you there? Gareth?
Speaker 3 (05:34):
I sure I am.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
How are you good?
Speaker 6 (05:36):
Good?
Speaker 3 (05:37):
How can we help?
Speaker 4 (05:38):
I've just got a question. I work in a little
well known resort town in the North Island and I'm
on a permanent part time contract with a minimum of
twenty eight but we've recently had a lot of things
like power cuts and all this sort of stuff, and
(05:59):
I've been told to go home early and haven't been
paid the twenty eight hours on my minimum contract. I'm
just wondering if they're enough to do that.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
Now, that's a great question, and Trev this comes up
quite often as well. Technically, you should be entitled to
the minimum hours in your contract, and so taking this
strict approach, you should be paid at least twenty hours
a week, even if there isn't twenty eight hours of work.
That's it. Sometimes it does pay to take a reasonable
(06:33):
approach because if things are happening to your employer that
are outside of their control, like power pylons falling over
or things of that nature, if you take this strictly
legal approach, you may win the battle but lose the war.
Because understood a lot of businesses are struggling, especially with
(06:55):
the economy and inflation and stuff like that, and the
employees that make sure they get absolutely everything they are
entitled to and then sometimes find themselves out of her job.
So sometimes it is worth working with your employer. They
may not realize that they actually have to pay you
(07:17):
the minimum hours in your contract. So as always, you know,
it's worth having a chat with your employer, be as
constructive as possible and see if you can come to
some sort of arrangement that you can both live with.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Right, Okay, No, that's some good advice. Thank you very
much for that.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
You're welcome all the best.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Thanks very much, Trevor for calling.
Speaker 5 (07:35):
Got a text here from Amanda saying, Hi, Gareth, and
there are a few numbers in here. My daughter's at
a cafe. She's been there for nearly two years. She's
on a permanent contract with a minimum of fourteen hours.
The last thirteen months, she's worked thirty hours per week
and loves it. She had it run in with the
supervisor and now has had her hours reduced to seventeen
(07:56):
per week as of last week. The owner has said
it's to manage her errors. She's never had a performance
review nor been given a training plan. What the heck
can you help please this?
Speaker 3 (08:06):
Yeah? So this often happens where someone starts off on
a relatively limited number of hours and then the hours
grow and they stay at an increased number for an
extended period of time. I think after a year of
working thirty hours, I think it was thirty Yep. This
person's got a very strong case that her hours are
(08:29):
actually now thirty hours a week and they can only
be reduced by agreement. So I think she's got some
leverage here.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
So if she goes to them and says, I've had advice, yep,
I've worked thirty hours for a year. Technically there had
to be agreement to reduce me to seventeen, and they go, sorry,
it's seventeen. What happens? Then?
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Then she's got a personal a grievance. I mean, at
a minimum, if they've reduced her hours because she's had
a run in and we don't know exactly what the
running is, but a run in with the supervisor, that
seems unreasonable as well, because that's punishment, and you can't
punish someone by reducing their hours.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
So she should gently go to them and say, look,
as the first step, thirty hours is what we you know,
you need to agree otherwise otherwise? Can she then say otherwise?
I think I'm going to be forced to take a
personal grievance?
Speaker 3 (09:19):
Yes, she could, you know, I find it interesting that
the employers now saying this is to manage the employee's
errors or have they been raised previously? If they haven't,
why not good? So there's a few red flags there.
Speaker 5 (09:34):
What happens with personal grievance is do you know, do
people win them for one of a better term?
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Yeah? I guess There's been a whole industry created with
advocates raise grievances for people. When most of them settle
and the advocate clips the ticket, set out of court, Yeah,
set out of court. It gets a bit more tricky
if the person actually wants to stay, and often people
(10:01):
want to stay. They want to fix the relationship. The
system supposedly designed for that, but practice it doesn't often work.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Okay, thanks Josh, thank you very much for waiting, Garret.
Speaker 6 (10:10):
It's all is no way thanks So Yeah. Company I'm
working for, like a lot of businesses, are very slow
at the moment, and they had a meeting with us
all and told that two of us had to reduce
hours by three and a half hours a week. The
(10:31):
funny thing was they had me doing some papers and
unemployment stuff just the week before, and one of the
things I read was it had to be done by
that employer can't reduce her hours without consultation. I was
actually quite happy to help the company out by reducing
my hours to help the company. However, they never put
(10:52):
anything in writing to us, and I didn't know when
it was startying, how long it was going to be
for etc. And the other thing was I wanted to
negotiate the hours that I could have off. For example,
if I finished it one instead of finishing at four
thirty one day a week, I could finish at one
o'clock because I could make the money up by working
(11:13):
for a second job I have.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Yeah, I mean that all sounds very reasonable. And I'll
be inclined to go back to your employer and make
those points. Oh well, I think they're in a precarious
position then, because you're right, you can't just force someone
(11:35):
to reduce their hours. That it has to be either
as part of a restructure, so there's consultation, feedback and
then a decision, or it has to be by agreement. Now,
if they've just reduced your hours and there was no
agreement as to when that would be, which days, the
beginning of the day, the end of the day, any
of that sort of stuff, it sounds like they've acted
(11:57):
you noilaterally without agreement, and you've got good grounds for acclaim.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Yeah, Josh, very best of luck to you, Thanks for
raising question. Thank you, mate. You Hello Mitchell, Mitchell a
biggie pattern.
Speaker 6 (12:12):
Yeah, how are you? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (12:14):
Good, good, good good.
Speaker 6 (12:15):
My wife works as a nurse for a DHV in
a casual fall and I'm just wondering, at what point
does casual become permanent.
Speaker 3 (12:25):
Yeah, that's that's a very good question, Mitchel. And it's
kind of like asking how long is a piece of string.
There's no set definition, and casual employment is generally described
as being employment that is infrequent and irregular, and so
(12:50):
I generally take the approach that as soon as it
becomes frequent and or regular, then you're you're kind of
verging into a permanent part time perhaps with no fixed hours,
but not casual. And I think there's a lot of
people in New Zealand that ostensibly on a casual contract
(13:12):
that aren't casual employees. Yeah, so I hope that helps.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Thanks, Mitchell, appreciate it very much. Quick text before we
finish up. Gareth, Hi, mate, I'm on acc I have
been for five weeks. ACC want me off work for
another two to three months. The accident happened at my
place of work and was a result of faulty items.
Does my employer need to keep my role open? So
has been?
Speaker 3 (13:43):
Yeah, it really depends on what sort of business it is,
what the role is, and then what the court would
consider to be a reasonable period. Now after an extended absence,
and that's going to be different for every sort of job.
After an extended absence, an employer can start consulting on
(14:04):
terminating for medical incapacity or medical as absence after how long, Well,
it really depends. So if you if you work for
a very large organization where someone could absorb the work
that you do in the meantime, that period's likely to
be longer. If you work in a business with two
employees and they actually can't cope without having someone in
(14:28):
that role, the period's likely to be a lot shorter.
So it's really difficult to know.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Maybe text it. Could you text us back and tell
us what you did. And we've only got thirty seconds
before Garth shoots the building because he's on the clock,
you know, and we have to pay him, just jokes.
He does it all for free because he's a good man.
Speaker 5 (14:45):
He does it for cash.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Yeah, but if you could text us then and tell
us what you do, it might help. But we're pretty
much out of time, so I.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Mean, three months is quite a short period to terminate
for absence, is it you? You could potentially do it,
but it's at the shorter edge.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Okay, all right, Hey Gareth, thank you as always, mate,
Really good to get you in. Thanks my pleasure and
a reminder, folks, the content of this segment is general
in nature and is not legal advice. Any information discussed
is not intended to be a substitute for obtaining specific
professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
For more from Simon Barnett and James Daniels afternoons, listen
live to news Talks at B or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!