November 2, 2025 • 41 mins
Dame Noeline Taurua was stood down as the coach of the Silver Ferns in September due to 'significant issues' in the team. After many public statements and interviews, she was reinstated at the end of last month.
Netball NZ, her employer, remained just vague enough that the public could allow their imaginations to run wild about what had happened.
Andrew Bayly, MP for Port Waikato, resigned as a Minister after an 'animated discussion' during which he placed his hand on a staffers arm. He said he was led to believe a complaint had been laid, and his resignation was in response to that - but he very recently discovered that no formal complaint was made.
Luxon has since said about Bayly, that he would have sacked him if he hadn't resigned first.
But what is the right way to go about an employment dispute like these?
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 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks
at Babe.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
In the working Class.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
What you say, simple handle of his hand from Simple Broth, Wow,
Western Saba, Superb Classman, elms Mann, sel manco Sa sell Man,
(00:56):
the hard in a complicate.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Oho, I forgot to come in, Come in. I was
welcome back. I was enjoying and just enjoying a little
listening to a little bit of Jimmy Barnes the working
class Man, not as much as me. Yes, no, you
don't talk yet. Hush hush, hush, hush hush, even though
people know who it is. But just let me, let
me go through the motions. Okay, Max, right, Welcome back
(01:25):
to Smart Money, And of course that song is the
theme for our guest here is an employment relations expert.
And by the way we're going to kick things off,
I'm going to have a chat with Max around just
employment disputes. And it's a little bit on the back
of NOL and Tarus dispute with you know, with Netball
New Zealand and all that sort of thing. Because I'll
(01:45):
be honest with you, my pet Peeve, about this has
been the breathless reporting of one side of the story
and everyone's going, why don't we hear anything from Netball
New Zealand. You know that handling this very this terribly
But the fact is is that it's it's a legal dispute,
which where things have to remain confidential, especially when that
comes to HR. So on the back of that, we're
also going to talk about making an HR complaint and
(02:10):
being confident that you can do it safely within the workplace,
because that's another thing people might think, Oh, the HR,
they've probably got a hot line to the CEO and everyone. No, no,
I'm the stirer. So anyway, we're gonna have a chat
with Max about that in just a moment, but also
taking your calls on any questions you might have about
employment relations, whether you be an employer or an employee.
(02:31):
But anyway, obviously I've mentioned Max a few times. It's
Max Whitehead. Hello, Max, how are you?
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Can I speak now?
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Tyra? Can Max speak now?
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Where I don't want to burn out my contract?
Speaker 2 (02:42):
No, she's freaking out. I said, sorry, she thought there
was something that wasn't going to air anyway.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
Hello, lovely to be here. Did you like my dancing before?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
I was actually just saying to Tyra. In fact, I
was going to that. Often when we play guest's favorite songs,
they do a little groove, and I thought, we do
have cameras in the studio. We could lift the video
of that and post that online in a nice little
little combination of dance moods. But probably given that we
haven't warned you about it, we won't do it.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
Actually, I wouldn't mind, wouldn't you know? It's in the
spirit of the show.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Well, good fun of the show, But those dance moods
they need some work.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Oh, for goodness sake, how offensive is that? No, just kidding, Hey, folks,
if you only had seen it.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Anyway, Hey, now, look there is something about that, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
Charity is definitely the big deal, and it just blew
me away.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
The number of times you'd hear people saying, oh, I
need Moore, New Zealand need to need to talk speak up.
It's like they can't. And in fact, any employer, I mean,
I don't know if Nolan was a contractor or an
employee or whatever whatever it is.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
I understand she's a contractor and she in voices once
a month.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
High because the there's the need for a legal dispute
to be resolved confidentially. It confidentially, and on the other side,
there's this public interest in the sport and that just
two completely different worlds, aren't they.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
They certainly are. And of course a higher profile you go,
the more sensitive is and the more damage that can
be done. So the court of public opinion really get
it wrong so often, so often. I mean, we've seen
it so much, even with the American celebrities who might
get themselves into bit of trouble and everyone's calling, well,
(04:34):
that's it jail for that person, and it really is
wrong because they haven't even had a chance to pipe
up and say their own side of the story.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Because the other side of it is, you know, there
were players that expressed whatever they expressed and we're not
going to know necessarily. But if Netball had sort of
given too much information, then how safe would anyone working
in that organization feel about aggrievance Because when it comes
to an HR issue, if you've something you are you're
concerned about, I would have thought that confidentiality unless you're
(05:05):
you know, you want to go down with the ship
and bear a whistleblower in public flames, confidentiality is everything.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
Well, there's a thing called natural justice, which you're you know,
you've did your law degree, so you go back and
you'll probably remember that. And natural justice is now getting
more and more closely defined and getting closer to employment law.
Now employment law in New Zealand. Here it's good faith
is the key, and I think it's getting very very
close to a natural justice would be actually for contractors
(05:35):
as well, and that that factor alone says that any
celebrity who's going through this sort of thing, the employer
or the principal view of the arrangement cannot release any
facts of information. They have a right to confidentially that
individual and the right to dignity and the right to
be treated fairly.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
I guess the question would be, I mean, look, this
is not a sports talk show, but it was such
a public sort of dispute. Was there anything you thought
that Ball in New Zealand could have done differently in
terms of handling it. My criticism would have been they
simply should have just said, look, we know that there's
a public interest in this, but there is also a
very intense private interest which we need to protect, being
(06:19):
the parties absolutely, and so you may want this information
but we are not in a position to give it
to you full stop.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
And quite often, unfortunately the media will not publish those
because there it's almost a criticism of them for asking
an awkward question. And you're quite right, I think that's
exactly the answer that should be given, you know, for goodness, say,
give this process a reasonable period of time to sort
itself out before you make any judgment on anybody.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Actually, just for that from some perspective. And we're not
necessarily talk about Noel and Taro as dispute with netball
in New Zealand, which seems to have well, I'm not
sure if it's totally been resolved. Watch the space. But
one of the questions was, oh, this has been dragging
on for so many months. How long in your experience,
(07:07):
how long do employment proceedings often you know, what's the
range in terms of how long they'll stretch out to
win it when it's something fairly fundamental affecting someone's continued
continuing to stay in a particular role.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
I had a case. I took it to the Employment
Mediation Service, couldn't resolve it, so we took it to
the authority. Five years five years tim it's still it's
still wasn't resolved. And you know what the issue was
they she hadn't been paid any wages. Now do you
think that would be a open and shut wouldn't you?
(07:46):
You would and I would think that's pretty disgraceful. Well,
I was very disappointed in the employment authority over that,
and it's still not resolved.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
You probably can't talk about that. Of course, if it's
not resolved too much.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
Well, it's not going any further.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Hey.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
So in terms of the HR disputes, and I mean,
what is what is a reasonable time frame for most
cases to get resolved when there's a conflict forgetting the
hi there, when there's a disploy dispute between an employer
and employee over conduct or something serious which is threatening
(08:22):
their continuation in a role, what is the general time frame?
How does it all? How does the process play out?
Speaker 4 (08:29):
So the employer has an obligation if there is a
complaint made, the employer has an obligation in law to
actually act as as soon as soon as practical, So
they've got to do an investigation. Then they have to
come up with a conclusion. But if they procrastinate and
take their time over this whole thing, it can cost
them a penalty. So I mean, I like the I
(08:50):
like the employment law for that, but the judiciary are
completely different. If it goes to the judiciary, they can
take years and years and years and do and do,
and quite frankly, now it's getting even longer if you
do take it to the judice to get things any
sorted out. Even the mediation service in our fraternity employment
law is getting eight to ten weeks before you can
(09:13):
even get a hearing, and an urgent hearing you might
get in four to five weeks. Urgent means somebody who's
still in unemployment.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
So what I mean and what are the costs associated
with it? Because I think people have an assume I've
got a problem as an employee, you need to go
to some sort of court process or mediation or arbitration things.
It's not necessarily a cheap process either as well.
Speaker 4 (09:35):
The mediation service is free, but there's a cost to
emotional cost. And of course people's feelings are very very
high in the beginning, and they just keep going on
and on and can get worse and quite often but
in some cases they just deplete. And that's sometimes I
swear that you just replay that hoping that people will
withdraw their thing because they can't be bothered any longer.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
So what is the process if you've got a dispute?
So where does mediation? Where does mediation? I know we've
talked about this before, but you should remind us because
we've always got new people coming in it and I
forget well to be honest, no, no, I do, yes.
But what is if you've got an employment dispute is
what's the beginning of the process.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
First off, you need to lodge it with you. If
you're an employee, you lodge the complaint with your employer,
and that's the first requirement of a process. Then you
might lodge a personal grievance with them if you're not
getting it justified, getting it sorted out, And in that
letter you can actually offer the employee, Look, I'm happy
(10:34):
to take a compensation to resolve it or whatever you
might want to do, but you should point out in
that personal grievance set what remedy you want and then
also ask them would you prefer we could take this
to mediation. Now that's the process that I would normally
adopt and recommend that people do. Now, as I just said,
mediation can take eight to ten weeks, and you can
(10:57):
get private mediation which can happen quite quickly, but it's
going to cost you the minimum of two to three
thousand dollars just for just a have a mediation.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
How much of a block is it? Do you find
with people that you know you have to take a
logic with your employer, And as soon as you do that,
I mean, there'll be a lot of people who would
be weighing up, do I really want to do this?
Because all of a sudden you become that employer and
you just assume, well, my progress through this company stops
today exactly. I mean, that's the problem, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
The bonus is not going to happen. My pay increase
is not going to happen. I know that from the
moment I logic complaint, and I'm going to be number
one target if there's a restructure for a redundancy. That's
immediately what goes to everyone's mind. So the job's nearly
wound up before I even start by raising a complaint.
(11:49):
Now it shouldn't it shouldn't. In law, the employee should
not make a bias because a person has a right
to lay a complaint, and the legislation is designed to
be able to try and take that through a journey,
but it does happen, of course subconscious sometimes.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Do you ever know of anyone who's taken aggrievance who
still manages to progress through a company or do you
generally have to write off your relationship with that company
once you become a litigant.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
Well that's a good question, but I think in my experience,
very few, and there has been a few have risen
afterwards because they've raised a legitimate issue and taken it
to the employer in a very mature and professional manner,
and with that they gained the respect of the employer
and the employee goes, my goodness, we weren't aware of
this was happening, so let's try and resolve it. So
(12:38):
there are, but that's very few, I guess would depend
on how big.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
It depends on how big or smaller company is. So
if you've a smaller company, then you have a sort
of personal relationship with the boss, it could really put
a dent in that. Whereas if it's a massive company
where you've brought something to their attention and there's enough
of a mood within the board who think, actually, this
person's done us a favor. But I mean, you know
that sounds still pretty unlikely, doesn't it.
Speaker 4 (13:03):
I know, it can be quite legit to it because
sometimes they've got a middle manager and the board of
know that they're a bit problematic and a bit moody
and perhaps unpredictable, and they're waiting for someone to make
it complaint that can happen, and the individual comes up
and does it in a very professional and respectful manner,
(13:24):
they could be quite quite pleased to have it.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Okay, WEX, We love your calls on this as well.
Taking a grievance against a company or not a company,
an employer or whatever, and I mean, if you have
done it, what was the price that you did pay
for it? But on the other side of things, the
HR when it comes to HR, which is a you know,
that can be a grievance about someone else you happen
to work with or whatever, what's what is What are
(13:50):
the legal requirements of that? Because companies, you know, will
tell you that you go to HR and that should
all be confidential. What are the rules around that? And
how much of that relies on simply the company's practice
and because I know a lot of I've spaining to
people not in this company just generally that they are
deeply suspicious of whether in fact something that once it's
(14:11):
with HR, it's in the company's files somewhere, and it's
going to be very difficult. Well, a lot of trust
confidentiality with HR.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Well, a lot of employees think that HR is there
for their benefit, but they forget who actually is paying
the wages of the of HR, and of course the
employer is so actually what they are there as a
gatekeeper is somebody that's supposed to keep the filter all
(14:40):
the issues so they resolved and the employer doesn't have
to suffer any litigation or problems later on, or that
individuals not a problem is anymore. So quite often HR
can be part of the problem, and my experience of
reason is getting more often, but.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
It should be. I mean, what are the expectations of confidentiality.
Speaker 4 (14:59):
And that's that's that should be taken. And if there's
a breach of that, well, goness sake, come and get
someone like me, because that in itself can actually be
almost almost a constructive dismissal, but it almost can cause
difficulties and a personal grievance can come from that.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
So who has to keep I mean, what is it
defined within certain roles or is it defined about who
can't find out about it? I would imagine the obvious
would be there's someone who's harassing someone else in the workplace, Well,
that person who's the accused harasser should not know who
(15:37):
the accuser is necessarily. But then that's the whole issue
of how do you confront your accuser?
Speaker 1 (15:42):
I e.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
I mean, look at Andrew Bailey. God he was stuck
with't he?
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (15:45):
He was?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
And well, yes, that's another count of word.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
It is.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
It is, and we should talk about that later on.
But quite often individuals out there and be aware of
this if you're raising a complaint, and quite often people say, oh,
I'd like to keep this confidential. Now. Look, HR people
should never ever accept confidential chat. The reason being is
because if there is a legitimate issue to be resolved,
(16:11):
they're going to have to raise it in HR human
resources with an individual to try and fix it. And
that that individual who's been accused of something is allowed
to know who their accuser is.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Well, that's that that gets back to the noling taro.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
I think yes, because oh, I don't know who circumstances,
but I mean they're all over the players.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
The players were given confidentiality because you know, obviously they've
complained about the coach. It seems fairly obvious that the
charts are being selected if you've annoyed the coach by
complaining those days, right, So it is. It is difficult.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
Doesn't know, it is very difficult, very very difficult. I've
even heard over that that particular case. How are the
other players than the staff people considering her coming back?
I don't know, but no, we wouldn't get an answer.
He wouldn't have an answer. So he's doing the right
thing but not answering the question.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
But then she can't respond to the criticism unless it's
a generic criticism from particular players about something that everyone's
experiencing and some have got a problem with it. I
guess it's easier to keep that confidential because you can
still present the facts. Well, I think it's difficult.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
I think the employer in that particular case, the individuals
were wrong to actually promise they could have confidentiality because
that because the person who's been complained against has a
right to know who the complainant is. And to deprive
them of that, you're breaching the good faith obligations. And
(17:39):
I think it's that natural justice as well.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
It's a no when scenario, then, doesn't it, Because you've
got players who don't want to have a coach he's
prejudiced against and we want to Then again, if they're
pointing out facts that are ascertainable without reference to who
the individuals are, that's different, hasn't it. If someone's got
a certain method of I don't know, doing something which
everyone is going through and there are few people have
(18:03):
got a problem with it. I guess you don't need
to know who's got a problem.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
You, yeah, the one. Yeah, if it's across the board,
then maybe you don't need to know the individual. But
I mean, you're still entitled to know who the complainant is,
and I think it's reasonable that they do know.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
I guess that if you went, for instance, getting away
from the netball, if you went to HR and you said,
I've got to complain against X, but I want it
to be confidential, then at the very least, at that
stage you are confidential until work tell you. If you
want us to proceed with this, you're going to have
to we need to present the person needs to know
(18:44):
what they are.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
And that's that's exactly the conversation should have.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Otherwise, if they decide we're not going to take this
any further unless you forgo confidentiality. So if they don't
take any further, then that should all be confidential, but
they can't take any steps.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
Well, it happens often, and that's exactly what happens to me.
You've just put the scenario which happens in stage who.
So Stage one, the worker goes in and goes like,
I've got a problem with Max and he's causing me difficulties,
but I don't want I don't want you to I
want to keep that confidential from Max. And then HR
should the part two. HR should say we can't resolve
(19:21):
any matters if we can't confront Max, and he has
a right to know that you're complaining and it's from you.
So I think that's it's really common and that does happen.
That conversation does happen. So the worker should be told
by HR, we have to use it. If you don't
want to do you want confidentiality, we can't do anything
for you. You're on your own.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Tricky one, isn't it. We'd love your cause on this.
But also, if you've got any questions for Max White,
he's an employment relations expert, then give us a call.
And I mean, if you want me to throw a
theme to you as to what you might want to
talk about. The broad question would be do you actually
trust HR and the confidentiality process at your workplace? And
(20:03):
I've got to say, I I just hope I'm never
in the ballpark of having.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
To do it.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
The thing is, tim that ninety seven percent of all
employees work for an employer who's less than well most
most enterprises are smaller than twenty twenty employees, so they're
all smaller businesses. In New Zealand, very little actually have
like a huge HR department and a huge they're just
government departments and new and probably the organizations like this one.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Remind me to ask you about bonuses as well, because
you did mention about if it were complaining, you might
not get a bonus. But where there actually bonuses are
some things that you can objectively argue for. If everyone
else has got one, why not me. We might get
into that, but right now it is twenty seven minutes
past five eight hundred eighty ten eighty is the number
any questions you've got for Max. He's an employment relations expert.
(20:53):
We'd love to hear from you. We'll be back in
just a moment. Oh, eight hundred eighty ten eighty text
nine two nine two. This is news Talk, said B. Yes,
News Talk, said B. Taking your calls. I eight hundred
eighty ten eighty Where Max Whitehead is and employment relations
it spurt. By the way, if you do miss any
of the any of the broadcasts and you think I
want to go back and hear that, just go to
iHeartRadio and look for the Weekend Collective and just click
(21:16):
on that and awhere you go. I've actually did it.
There's a new version of iHeart Radio. It's been updated
where you can literally save the Weekend Collective as a
pre set and you click on it and let's go.
Do you want to listen to the panel? Do you
want to listen to the health Hub? Do you want
to listen to Max on Smart Money? And away you go. Okay,
it's that easy, right, Let's go to the call show
with Max.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
Yep, bring it on, Steven Hi, Hey, Steve.
Speaker 6 (21:40):
Game X. We don't have to start a listening. I
thought I was listening to John Hart. You sound very
much like John Hart, who was with Flitchers for a
long time.
Speaker 4 (21:51):
Oh gosh, I remember the name from way back, but
I thought he was an All Black captain coach coach.
Ye same guy. Oh look, I can tell you a
story about him, because way back in time he actually
my story. Go go fair enough, fair enough, That's how
we hit in that shut up, Stephen, go go, I've
(22:15):
been told.
Speaker 6 (22:16):
Thanks man, Yeah, thanks for letting me talk. I'm in
my sixties and started working the seventies, and redundancy wasn't
even a word, I guess. Anyway, I worked for a
pretty well known timber hardware company for twenty years, worked
my way up the ladder, and anyway, he got made
redundant for being there for twenty years, and it was
(22:38):
a it was a friendly redundance. There was a good payout.
Mys pissed off about. I got a letter to say
that I could respond within so many days if I
felt I was being poorly treated, which I did, but
that meant nothing. So then I joined another company and
started at a similar sort of position and worked there
(23:01):
for seventeen years and then got made redundant, and again
got this letter that said, you know this, if you
have any problems with this, or if you'd like to
give your thoughts, then do so, which of course I did.
I still got made redundant. And my philosophy on being
redundant at that point was whether there's another there's another
(23:22):
job coming somewhere anyway, So I was near retirement and
I started working for a I won't say the name
of the company, but anyway, enjoyed it. And COVID came
and we all got letters to say that we would
be made redundant but if we if we wish to
(23:44):
provide some input into why we shouldn't be, then we
we could. And again I did. Now on those three
occasions and I'm back working. I'm back doing a job
I love. But anyway, on those three occasions, the letters
meant nothing. It was like the management had made up
there on mine. And when I talked to my ex
(24:05):
friends at the last place, I was made redundant from
there's a lot of redundancies going on. They get the
same letter that says, if you wish to say something
about this, but that input from the person being made
redundan is just needless waste of time because they've made
up their mind. That's what I wanted to get across.
Speaker 4 (24:27):
Is there a question in there?
Speaker 6 (24:29):
So how can the employee fight back.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Against the redundancy?
Speaker 5 (24:36):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (24:37):
Yeah, yeah, well that consultation process is there. Actually, I'll
tell you what Steve to do. Exactly thing I advise
any person going through it. You ask the employer questions.
You have a right to have all the information regarding
the company. So if they're saying financially we can't afford
you anymore, we're going through hard times, well, then asked
(24:58):
to see all their financial records, asked to see all
their overheads, asked to see a management still getting coro
club access? Or how many company cars have we got
right now? I mean, these awkward questions they have to answer.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
But what if they answer them and they are squandering
a lot of money on management and stuff? What Stephen
would say, Well, what can I do if it turns
out they've got you know, the CEO is driving a
Rolls Royce for a company car. What do I do then?
Speaker 4 (25:25):
So you can put up an argument in saying, well
they should actually go to a downgrade the motor vehicle.
But ninety percent of the time, tim the employer doesn't
answer the questions, going well, what businesses that are yours?
And what if they don't answer the question, then you've
got them. It's a gotcha moment. Good faith says that
they've got to be responsive and they've got to get
back to you and communicative and they can't lie to you. Okay,
(25:47):
So it's a gotcha moment and twenty thousand dollars a
maximum fine for employers who who don't respond to you
reasonably on those sort of things.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Did you do any of that, Stephen? Did you quest
them on stuff?
Speaker 6 (25:59):
Or of course that we lawyer each time, wrote them
letters and all came to nothing other than a lawyer's
bill for me on each occasion.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
You mentioned before in the earlier part of describing you
talked about a friendly redundancy. What was the context in
which you said a friendly redundancy or did I must
hear that?
Speaker 6 (26:21):
Okay? So after twenty years with it was Cardhold Harvey,
I am and I was in a reasonably good position.
It was one of their first redundancies. So when they
started making international paper more Cardhold Harvey back in the
day when they started making kiwis redundant. They were very
careful and very hospitable about the amount of money that
(26:44):
they the redundancy.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
So they gave you a decent payout, that's what he got.
Speaker 6 (26:48):
Yeah, Yeah, they gave us a whacking grade.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
Payer, which is pretty rare.
Speaker 6 (26:53):
To Stephen, Well, you had your superation annuation on top
of that, so it's very rare.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (27:02):
But look, I'm talking about those people that are going
to be made done in the next two years one year,
and they get this letter that says, you know, if
you wish to discuss it with us, or if you
wish to put your decide, tell us that we're doing
something not right or this is not a good decision.
But everybody I know has done that and never won once,
(27:22):
never kept their job.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Well, that's why I'm saying to you that if the
employer fails to answer that question reasonably, then that's that's
grounds for a breach of good faith. Twenty thousand dollars.
Fine for that, we could take election.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Good stuff. Hey, thanks for your course, Stephen. Actually it's
good to hear that. For people who think they've got
no choice but to accept redundancy, I mean, there would
be people who think, okay, to ask all these questions
when I'm still out of a job. But I guess
if you become a squeakier wheel, maybe doesn't mean you
might get a better payout.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
Or sometimes you could probably get a yeah, you might
get a better pay it, because there'll be settlement if
they fail to answer the question. Max raises it, or
somebody raises it with a personal grievance, we even a
breach of good faith allegation. Then there's sometimes a payment
saying well, we'll give you five thousand dollars if it
goes away.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
Okay, right, Hey, thanks for you. Of course, Stephen really
appreciate it. It is twenty two and a half minutes
to six News Talks a B eight hundred eighty ten
eighty Yes News Talks a B, Tim Beverage Worth, Max
white Hair taking your calls. Richard High Hi, Richard, Hi, Max.
Speaker 5 (28:29):
I just wanted to ask you about those questions that
you suggested people should ask employers, which I totally agree
was how I'd have to say that neither of the
questions as I heard them talked about from the employer
to gentlemen, or the answers that they gay meet that
(28:55):
sort of criteria which is you know that they said,
you can tell us why you don't think you should
be made redundant, and he said, well, I don't know
what he replied, but what you said they should ask,
in fact, is show us the figures that indicate that
you're in deep shit and redundancy is the only solution
(29:16):
that you've got.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
Yeah, because.
Speaker 5 (29:21):
Well, you know there's more. I mean, I wouldn't you know,
it'd be difficult to answer question even if you were
an employer that said, well, why am I being made?
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Well? See in the Unemployment Relations Act is a definition
for good faith. So if the employer is making a
it's in section four if you want to read it,
because it's quite interesting. Here, the different employer is about
to make a decision which may mean the end of
your employment, then their obligation is to do two things.
One is provides of all the information but wait for
(29:51):
this about the retention of your employment. And two is
to provide you an opportunity to make a comment. Now,
obviously two they are all agreeing to, but number one
they don't obviously give you enough information. Some of them do,
but very very few. But they should be flooding you
with information regarding that you know, what is it that
(30:12):
possibly could retain your employment? And quite often the employees
don't know what the employer knows. They don't know what
they don't know, and so one question could lead to another.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
Yes, but I mean, I'm just thinking, I've always got
the philosophy when you ask a question, you should already
know what the answer is going to be. We have
a pretty good idea as to what the answer is
going to do. And you know, like when you ask
a question, why am I being I don't think you
should make me redo it? That's not even really a question.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
No, it's not.
Speaker 5 (30:43):
They don't actually have to. What you need to do
is show us the information that you know validates your
decision to make staff redunder other actions.
Speaker 4 (30:54):
No, I totally agree with you, and you're dead right,
because those are the silly questions that some people do raise.
Is I don't think I should be made And that's
really just a common rather than a question.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
So you make it.
Speaker 4 (31:07):
You make your point pretty good there, Richard. So I
do agree with you. It's got to be a genuine
question in regarding straight to going straight to the heart
of the of the and relative to the redundancy.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Yes, yeah, okay, Hey thanks Richard, thanks for call mate. Yeah, cheers.
I've got a few texts here. One says this, one
says Tim, Why is it that complaints and grievances always
viewed by as negative by employers rather than a genuine
process that could change and improve company processes. That's from Tony.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
I think that's there's some truth in that well, and I.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Guess there'll be every many companies would say, no, no,
we we we love complaints because we love it as
an opportunity to review what we're doing.
Speaker 4 (31:52):
But how often, how often, quite often the complaints are
pretty negative against the management. So and that's why they
are probably a bit averse to it, not openly but
covertly behind behind the scenes.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
You mentioned that HR. It's worth remembering that HR are
there to protect the employer. Really, they're sort of to
filter complaints and sort of try and manage the process.
Is that you saying that if you've got a serious issue,
don't waste your time with HR.
Speaker 4 (32:24):
I think you can raise things of HR, but if
you're not getting anywhere, you should go and get other
help because HR are there to defuse any potential issues
and you imagine they're tactics and doing that. That's actually
the smiling crocodile. Come and talk to us, smiling, come
and talk to us because we can help you. And
sometimes they can, but quite often their advice is really well,
(32:48):
it's much loaded to ensure that the person who pays
their pay is going to be better off and then
the worker.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
I had never thought of it from such a cynical
point of view, but now you point it out, it
feels like, of course that's the way it would roll,
I guess.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
And it's common. And of course they always try to
be very very friendly. They are smiling people and the
very nice crocodiles. They're very nice to talk to. But
and the reality is and they actually hold a lot
of power. Someone goes straight to the top and have
access to the CEO or the managing director, and so
(33:22):
it don't underestimate the powerful people.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
Now this one ties into something I did actually mean
to touch on, which a sick leave. But this is
from Craig. It says, how can my work keep using
my annual leave? As I had run out of sick leave.
Have asked them not to, but they said, I have
to use up some of my annual leave was obviously
he used up all a sick leave. I'm guessing he
(33:47):
might be out of luck.
Speaker 4 (33:48):
No, no, no, good on your tim though he's not.
He's not out of luck. They cannot use his annual
leave for when he is sick. He's got to get
his permissioned before they can do that. So in fact,
I've had a question today.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
So if you have a chronic you know, I don't know,
you've done something you can't work and you've I don't
know how many weeks sickly people have. But if you've
used that up, then what's the employers out on that
as well? Because you know, an employer does want people
to be at work.
Speaker 4 (34:17):
Yeah, good, good question. Because what happens, like you get
ten days sick day and perhaps you've broken a leg
or something, and so you're going to be off for
six weeks. As soon as your ten days runs out,
the employer doesn't have to pay you anything. So it's
about pay.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
So okay, So that Craig's option is that he keeps
us annual leave intact, yes, but that he just doesn't
get paid exactly, So as employer arguably is doing him
a favor by saying you should probably use your annual
leave for this.
Speaker 4 (34:49):
Well, he should get agreement before he actually goes to
helping this. Particularly, Craig said them there, didn't he that
he asked them not to.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Okay, so they asked him not to. But I'm not
sure if Craig realizes that the alternative is not getting paid.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
Yep, it's a zero bank account now, so it's not that.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Friendly sort of option for him, is it. So you
either use your annual leave get paid, or you keep
staying out of work for sickness and no money.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
Yep, you got it. And injury injury is a different
thing because acc keep paying you eighty percent.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Yeah, and if you self employed eighty percent of eighty percent,
which I always thought was a bit ropey. But anyway, um, right,
tell you what. We might just quickly take a break.
We'll come back with a couple more. We've got a
quite a few texts for Max here, as we often
get because sometimes people don't really want to attach their
voice to agrievmans. They've got just in case their bosses
listening and goes that sounds suspicious. We'll be back in
(35:45):
just a moment. It's twelve minutes to six News Talks
head B News Talk said B Tim Beverage with Max Whitehead.
Not long to go, So let's have a look at
a few of the texts. My husband's been employed by
a large New Zealm company for the last four years.
During that entire time, he's been on a fixed term contract.
He's just been informed his contract won't be renewed. The
company has told me he can apply for the same
(36:07):
role he's been doing, but the new position is thirty
thousand less a year. They've said there's no guarantee he'll
be successful. They further emphasize that if he does secure
another job, oh god, that's just disappeared on me. That's
but yeah, before I find the end of that.
Speaker 4 (36:23):
One, that's an interesting scenario.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Contractor. Yeah, they're getting rid of the role he's been
doing as a contractor.
Speaker 4 (36:31):
So he's sort of no, he's on fixed term, which
keep continuing. And then they said, we're we're not going
to renew that.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Oh fixed term contract. That's right? Is that a contractor?
Speaker 3 (36:39):
Is that? Well?
Speaker 4 (36:40):
I think contract machine means employment fixed term. That's a
technical term, dodgy.
Speaker 2 (36:45):
So they're going to offer the same job at thirty
k less.
Speaker 4 (36:49):
That's that sounds dodgy to me too.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Sounds like you need to get some advice, doesn't it.
Speaker 4 (36:53):
Yep, they should come to me because obviously if the
job still exists, then for fixed terms to be terminated,
they've got to have a genuine reason to terminate it. Well,
it's not too many No, No, he's just been told
his contract will not be renewed. So the contract is
coming to an end. Yes, so we're not renewing it.
We're establishing from now on it's going to be done.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
Is this role at thirty k less?
Speaker 4 (37:17):
Again, there's got to be a genuine reason why it
came to an end. And if it's not specified at
the beginning of the fixed term, they can't use that
as the reason that it came to an end.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
No. But I mean, if it's fixed term, he's done
four years or four years is up? Can't they do
what they want?
Speaker 4 (37:31):
No, They've got to have a good reason for it
come to an end, and it's not coming to an end.
Speaker 2 (37:35):
So fixed to Okay? So fixed is a fixed term contract?
A fixed term contract then or what it is?
Speaker 4 (37:40):
But I mean, the only time that a person can
end a contract for a fixed tube, even though the
date's been specified in the contract. Is if it's for
a genuine reason, which was specified at the outset, so
it should.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
Beified it comes to an end in four years. Isn't
that a genuine reason, like four years is up.
Speaker 4 (37:56):
No, it's got to have a good reason. Got to
have a good reason because it's it should be specified
in the written contract at the outset. So at the
moment he signed up, the only reason you're going to
end this contract is because of this and this and
so teachers.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
It's the point in a fixed term contract.
Speaker 4 (38:12):
Well, if quite often it's funding, they won't get funding.
It could come to an end, like teachers and things
like that. There are good reasons. It's a project. It
usually comes to an end. And I tell you what it's.
It's something that's broken quite often and too often.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
Gosh, that is that sounds that does sound quite That
does sound quite complex. Because if I was an employer
and I employed someone for a fixed term contract, I
guess it would be I would be having a fixed
term because the role had come to an end.
Speaker 4 (38:42):
So yeah, I mean, I think the caller should give
me that Texas should give me a call. I think
there's some grounds behind that I'd like to know, but
a lot more information about it and even see the contract.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
Hey, look, we've had a lot of text and I'm
afraid we're not going to get to them all because
by the way, there's beens. What's the story with the
latest sick leave rules? Is there something around sick here?
Speaker 4 (39:04):
Yeah, So everybody used to get ten days before and
even if somebody only worked one day a month, got
ten days sick leave paid sick leave. Whereas now it's
going to be pro rated. So what happens from day one?
It's a proportion what is it, zero point threes So
(39:25):
of every how they work they get actually it's actually
given to them a little bit more, a little bit more,
a little bit more, until it builds up and they've
got a fear period.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
It means that if you're a part time worker, you
don't get the same entitlement for sick leave as a
full time worker. Basic.
Speaker 4 (39:39):
So it's zero three zero yeah, point zero three eighty
five every hour they work. That's accumulating for them to
actually have for sick leave.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
Okay, right, well that was a quick explanation. There we go.
Speaker 4 (39:51):
Well, you imagine that person worked once a month.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
I thought we just finished with a nice text. This
is from Well. It says I had a great experience
with HR when I had issues with my boss. They
looked after me during a redundancy process, probably because I
had a good case for personal grievance which I didn't pursue.
Is that a happy, happy story?
Speaker 4 (40:09):
Well, you know, maybe that's why they looked after you,
because they needed to ensure the boss didn't come to grief.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Okay. And if people want to get in touch with
your Max, because god, it's times.
Speaker 4 (40:21):
Up, it's a big hint there. I think Tyre's turning
to tell us to wind it up.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
There's always a subtle hint when the music starts playing.
Speaker 4 (40:26):
So give me a call on eight hundred and twenty
four to seven ninety three ninety three and just call
Max for the facts.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
Excellent. And if you if you want to catch up
with any of these hours, do go to News Talk,
said B look for the podcast or iHeartRadio. They've redone
the whole app where you can simply save the Weekend Collective.
Go to the Weekend Collective, save it as a preset
and just now click on that and it'll say here
are all the different hours and away you go. You're
sorted thanks to my Producer Tire Award and we look
(40:54):
forward to your company again same time. Next weekend, Sunday
at six is next. We'll just lead with a little
bit of it.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talks it'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks
at Babe.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
In the working Class.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
What you say, simple handle of his hand from Simple Broth, Wow,
Western Saba, Superb Classman, elms Mann, sel manco Sa sell Man,
(00:56):
the hard in a complicate.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Oho, I forgot to come in, Come in. I was
welcome back. I was enjoying and just enjoying a little
listening to a little bit of Jimmy Barnes the working
class Man, not as much as me. Yes, no, you
don't talk yet. Hush hush, hush, hush hush, even though
people know who it is. But just let me, let
me go through the motions. Okay, Max, right, Welcome back
(01:25):
to Smart Money, And of course that song is the
theme for our guest here is an employment relations expert.
And by the way we're going to kick things off,
I'm going to have a chat with Max around just
employment disputes. And it's a little bit on the back
of NOL and Tarus dispute with you know, with Netball
New Zealand and all that sort of thing. Because I'll
(01:45):
be honest with you, my pet Peeve, about this has
been the breathless reporting of one side of the story
and everyone's going, why don't we hear anything from Netball
New Zealand. You know that handling this very this terribly
But the fact is is that it's it's a legal dispute,
which where things have to remain confidential, especially when that
comes to HR. So on the back of that, we're
also going to talk about making an HR complaint and
(02:10):
being confident that you can do it safely within the workplace,
because that's another thing people might think, Oh, the HR,
they've probably got a hot line to the CEO and everyone. No, no,
I'm the stirer. So anyway, we're gonna have a chat
with Max about that in just a moment, but also
taking your calls on any questions you might have about
employment relations, whether you be an employer or an employee.
(02:31):
But anyway, obviously I've mentioned Max a few times. It's
Max Whitehead. Hello, Max, how are you?
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Can I speak now?
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Tyra? Can Max speak now?
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Where I don't want to burn out my contract?
Speaker 2 (02:42):
No, she's freaking out. I said, sorry, she thought there
was something that wasn't going to air anyway.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
Hello, lovely to be here. Did you like my dancing before?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
I was actually just saying to Tyra. In fact, I
was going to that. Often when we play guest's favorite songs,
they do a little groove, and I thought, we do
have cameras in the studio. We could lift the video
of that and post that online in a nice little
little combination of dance moods. But probably given that we
haven't warned you about it, we won't do it.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
Actually, I wouldn't mind, wouldn't you know? It's in the
spirit of the show.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Well, good fun of the show, But those dance moods
they need some work.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Oh, for goodness sake, how offensive is that? No, just kidding, Hey, folks,
if you only had seen it.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Anyway, Hey, now, look there is something about that, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
Charity is definitely the big deal, and it just blew
me away.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
The number of times you'd hear people saying, oh, I
need Moore, New Zealand need to need to talk speak up.
It's like they can't. And in fact, any employer, I mean,
I don't know if Nolan was a contractor or an
employee or whatever whatever it is.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
I understand she's a contractor and she in voices once
a month.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
High because the there's the need for a legal dispute
to be resolved confidentially. It confidentially, and on the other side,
there's this public interest in the sport and that just
two completely different worlds, aren't they.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
They certainly are. And of course a higher profile you go,
the more sensitive is and the more damage that can
be done. So the court of public opinion really get
it wrong so often, so often. I mean, we've seen
it so much, even with the American celebrities who might
get themselves into bit of trouble and everyone's calling, well,
(04:34):
that's it jail for that person, and it really is
wrong because they haven't even had a chance to pipe
up and say their own side of the story.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Because the other side of it is, you know, there
were players that expressed whatever they expressed and we're not
going to know necessarily. But if Netball had sort of
given too much information, then how safe would anyone working
in that organization feel about aggrievance Because when it comes
to an HR issue, if you've something you are you're
concerned about, I would have thought that confidentiality unless you're
(05:05):
you know, you want to go down with the ship
and bear a whistleblower in public flames, confidentiality is everything.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
Well, there's a thing called natural justice, which you're you know,
you've did your law degree, so you go back and
you'll probably remember that. And natural justice is now getting
more and more closely defined and getting closer to employment law.
Now employment law in New Zealand. Here it's good faith
is the key, and I think it's getting very very
close to a natural justice would be actually for contractors
(05:35):
as well, and that that factor alone says that any
celebrity who's going through this sort of thing, the employer
or the principal view of the arrangement cannot release any
facts of information. They have a right to confidentially that
individual and the right to dignity and the right to
be treated fairly.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
I guess the question would be, I mean, look, this
is not a sports talk show, but it was such
a public sort of dispute. Was there anything you thought
that Ball in New Zealand could have done differently in
terms of handling it. My criticism would have been they
simply should have just said, look, we know that there's
a public interest in this, but there is also a
very intense private interest which we need to protect, being
(06:19):
the parties absolutely, and so you may want this information
but we are not in a position to give it
to you full stop.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
And quite often, unfortunately the media will not publish those
because there it's almost a criticism of them for asking
an awkward question. And you're quite right, I think that's
exactly the answer that should be given, you know, for goodness, say,
give this process a reasonable period of time to sort
itself out before you make any judgment on anybody.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Actually, just for that from some perspective. And we're not
necessarily talk about Noel and Taro as dispute with netball
in New Zealand, which seems to have well, I'm not
sure if it's totally been resolved. Watch the space. But
one of the questions was, oh, this has been dragging
on for so many months. How long in your experience,
(07:07):
how long do employment proceedings often you know, what's the
range in terms of how long they'll stretch out to
win it when it's something fairly fundamental affecting someone's continued
continuing to stay in a particular role.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
I had a case. I took it to the Employment
Mediation Service, couldn't resolve it, so we took it to
the authority. Five years five years tim it's still it's
still wasn't resolved. And you know what the issue was
they she hadn't been paid any wages. Now do you
think that would be a open and shut wouldn't you?
(07:46):
You would and I would think that's pretty disgraceful. Well,
I was very disappointed in the employment authority over that,
and it's still not resolved.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
You probably can't talk about that. Of course, if it's
not resolved too much.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
Well, it's not going any further.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Hey.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
So in terms of the HR disputes, and I mean,
what is what is a reasonable time frame for most
cases to get resolved when there's a conflict forgetting the
hi there, when there's a disploy dispute between an employer
and employee over conduct or something serious which is threatening
(08:22):
their continuation in a role, what is the general time frame?
How does it all? How does the process play out?
Speaker 4 (08:29):
So the employer has an obligation if there is a
complaint made, the employer has an obligation in law to
actually act as as soon as soon as practical, So
they've got to do an investigation. Then they have to
come up with a conclusion. But if they procrastinate and
take their time over this whole thing, it can cost
them a penalty. So I mean, I like the I
(08:50):
like the employment law for that, but the judiciary are
completely different. If it goes to the judiciary, they can
take years and years and years and do and do,
and quite frankly, now it's getting even longer if you
do take it to the judice to get things any
sorted out. Even the mediation service in our fraternity employment
law is getting eight to ten weeks before you can
(09:13):
even get a hearing, and an urgent hearing you might
get in four to five weeks. Urgent means somebody who's
still in unemployment.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
So what I mean and what are the costs associated
with it? Because I think people have an assume I've
got a problem as an employee, you need to go
to some sort of court process or mediation or arbitration things.
It's not necessarily a cheap process either as well.
Speaker 4 (09:35):
The mediation service is free, but there's a cost to
emotional cost. And of course people's feelings are very very
high in the beginning, and they just keep going on
and on and can get worse and quite often but
in some cases they just deplete. And that's sometimes I
swear that you just replay that hoping that people will
withdraw their thing because they can't be bothered any longer.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
So what is the process if you've got a dispute?
So where does mediation? Where does mediation? I know we've
talked about this before, but you should remind us because
we've always got new people coming in it and I
forget well to be honest, no, no, I do, yes.
But what is if you've got an employment dispute is
what's the beginning of the process.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
First off, you need to lodge it with you. If
you're an employee, you lodge the complaint with your employer,
and that's the first requirement of a process. Then you
might lodge a personal grievance with them if you're not
getting it justified, getting it sorted out, And in that
letter you can actually offer the employee, Look, I'm happy
(10:34):
to take a compensation to resolve it or whatever you
might want to do, but you should point out in
that personal grievance set what remedy you want and then
also ask them would you prefer we could take this
to mediation. Now that's the process that I would normally
adopt and recommend that people do. Now, as I just said,
mediation can take eight to ten weeks, and you can
(10:57):
get private mediation which can happen quite quickly, but it's
going to cost you the minimum of two to three
thousand dollars just for just a have a mediation.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
How much of a block is it? Do you find
with people that you know you have to take a
logic with your employer, And as soon as you do that,
I mean, there'll be a lot of people who would
be weighing up, do I really want to do this?
Because all of a sudden you become that employer and
you just assume, well, my progress through this company stops
today exactly. I mean, that's the problem, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
The bonus is not going to happen. My pay increase
is not going to happen. I know that from the
moment I logic complaint, and I'm going to be number
one target if there's a restructure for a redundancy. That's
immediately what goes to everyone's mind. So the job's nearly
wound up before I even start by raising a complaint.
(11:49):
Now it shouldn't it shouldn't. In law, the employee should
not make a bias because a person has a right
to lay a complaint, and the legislation is designed to
be able to try and take that through a journey,
but it does happen, of course subconscious sometimes.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Do you ever know of anyone who's taken aggrievance who
still manages to progress through a company or do you
generally have to write off your relationship with that company
once you become a litigant.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
Well that's a good question, but I think in my experience,
very few, and there has been a few have risen
afterwards because they've raised a legitimate issue and taken it
to the employer in a very mature and professional manner,
and with that they gained the respect of the employer
and the employee goes, my goodness, we weren't aware of
this was happening, so let's try and resolve it. So
(12:38):
there are, but that's very few, I guess would depend
on how big.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
It depends on how big or smaller company is. So
if you've a smaller company, then you have a sort
of personal relationship with the boss, it could really put
a dent in that. Whereas if it's a massive company
where you've brought something to their attention and there's enough
of a mood within the board who think, actually, this
person's done us a favor. But I mean, you know
that sounds still pretty unlikely, doesn't it.
Speaker 4 (13:03):
I know, it can be quite legit to it because
sometimes they've got a middle manager and the board of
know that they're a bit problematic and a bit moody
and perhaps unpredictable, and they're waiting for someone to make
it complaint that can happen, and the individual comes up
and does it in a very professional and respectful manner,
(13:24):
they could be quite quite pleased to have it.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Okay, WEX, We love your calls on this as well.
Taking a grievance against a company or not a company,
an employer or whatever, and I mean, if you have
done it, what was the price that you did pay
for it? But on the other side of things, the
HR when it comes to HR, which is a you know,
that can be a grievance about someone else you happen
to work with or whatever, what's what is What are
(13:50):
the legal requirements of that? Because companies, you know, will
tell you that you go to HR and that should
all be confidential. What are the rules around that? And
how much of that relies on simply the company's practice
and because I know a lot of I've spaining to
people not in this company just generally that they are
deeply suspicious of whether in fact something that once it's
(14:11):
with HR, it's in the company's files somewhere, and it's
going to be very difficult. Well, a lot of trust
confidentiality with HR.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Well, a lot of employees think that HR is there
for their benefit, but they forget who actually is paying
the wages of the of HR, and of course the
employer is so actually what they are there as a
gatekeeper is somebody that's supposed to keep the filter all
(14:40):
the issues so they resolved and the employer doesn't have
to suffer any litigation or problems later on, or that
individuals not a problem is anymore. So quite often HR
can be part of the problem, and my experience of
reason is getting more often, but.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
It should be. I mean, what are the expectations of confidentiality.
Speaker 4 (14:59):
And that's that's that should be taken. And if there's
a breach of that, well, goness sake, come and get
someone like me, because that in itself can actually be
almost almost a constructive dismissal, but it almost can cause
difficulties and a personal grievance can come from that.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
So who has to keep I mean, what is it
defined within certain roles or is it defined about who
can't find out about it? I would imagine the obvious
would be there's someone who's harassing someone else in the workplace, Well,
that person who's the accused harasser should not know who
(15:37):
the accuser is necessarily. But then that's the whole issue
of how do you confront your accuser?
Speaker 1 (15:42):
I e.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
I mean, look at Andrew Bailey. God he was stuck
with't he?
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (15:45):
He was?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
And well, yes, that's another count of word.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
It is.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
It is, and we should talk about that later on.
But quite often individuals out there and be aware of
this if you're raising a complaint, and quite often people say, oh,
I'd like to keep this confidential. Now. Look, HR people
should never ever accept confidential chat. The reason being is
because if there is a legitimate issue to be resolved,
(16:11):
they're going to have to raise it in HR human
resources with an individual to try and fix it. And
that that individual who's been accused of something is allowed
to know who their accuser is.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Well, that's that that gets back to the noling taro.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
I think yes, because oh, I don't know who circumstances,
but I mean they're all over the players.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
The players were given confidentiality because you know, obviously they've
complained about the coach. It seems fairly obvious that the
charts are being selected if you've annoyed the coach by
complaining those days, right, So it is. It is difficult.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
Doesn't know, it is very difficult, very very difficult. I've
even heard over that that particular case. How are the
other players than the staff people considering her coming back?
I don't know, but no, we wouldn't get an answer.
He wouldn't have an answer. So he's doing the right
thing but not answering the question.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
But then she can't respond to the criticism unless it's
a generic criticism from particular players about something that everyone's
experiencing and some have got a problem with it. I
guess it's easier to keep that confidential because you can
still present the facts. Well, I think it's difficult.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
I think the employer in that particular case, the individuals
were wrong to actually promise they could have confidentiality because
that because the person who's been complained against has a
right to know who the complainant is. And to deprive
them of that, you're breaching the good faith obligations. And
(17:39):
I think it's that natural justice as well.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
It's a no when scenario, then, doesn't it, Because you've
got players who don't want to have a coach he's
prejudiced against and we want to Then again, if they're
pointing out facts that are ascertainable without reference to who
the individuals are, that's different, hasn't it. If someone's got
a certain method of I don't know, doing something which
everyone is going through and there are few people have
(18:03):
got a problem with it. I guess you don't need
to know who's got a problem.
Speaker 4 (18:07):
You, yeah, the one. Yeah, if it's across the board,
then maybe you don't need to know the individual. But
I mean, you're still entitled to know who the complainant is,
and I think it's reasonable that they do know.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
I guess that if you went, for instance, getting away
from the netball, if you went to HR and you said,
I've got to complain against X, but I want it
to be confidential, then at the very least, at that
stage you are confidential until work tell you. If you
want us to proceed with this, you're going to have
to we need to present the person needs to know
(18:44):
what they are.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
And that's that's exactly the conversation should have.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Otherwise, if they decide we're not going to take this
any further unless you forgo confidentiality. So if they don't
take any further, then that should all be confidential, but
they can't take any steps.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
Well, it happens often, and that's exactly what happens to me.
You've just put the scenario which happens in stage who.
So Stage one, the worker goes in and goes like,
I've got a problem with Max and he's causing me difficulties,
but I don't want I don't want you to I
want to keep that confidential from Max. And then HR
should the part two. HR should say we can't resolve
(19:21):
any matters if we can't confront Max, and he has
a right to know that you're complaining and it's from you.
So I think that's it's really common and that does happen.
That conversation does happen. So the worker should be told
by HR, we have to use it. If you don't
want to do you want confidentiality, we can't do anything
for you. You're on your own.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Tricky one, isn't it. We'd love your cause on this.
But also, if you've got any questions for Max White,
he's an employment relations expert, then give us a call.
And I mean, if you want me to throw a
theme to you as to what you might want to
talk about. The broad question would be do you actually
trust HR and the confidentiality process at your workplace? And
(20:03):
I've got to say, I I just hope I'm never
in the ballpark of having.
Speaker 5 (20:07):
To do it.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
The thing is, tim that ninety seven percent of all
employees work for an employer who's less than well most
most enterprises are smaller than twenty twenty employees, so they're
all smaller businesses. In New Zealand, very little actually have
like a huge HR department and a huge they're just
government departments and new and probably the organizations like this one.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Remind me to ask you about bonuses as well, because
you did mention about if it were complaining, you might
not get a bonus. But where there actually bonuses are
some things that you can objectively argue for. If everyone
else has got one, why not me. We might get
into that, but right now it is twenty seven minutes
past five eight hundred eighty ten eighty is the number
any questions you've got for Max. He's an employment relations expert.
(20:53):
We'd love to hear from you. We'll be back in
just a moment. Oh, eight hundred eighty ten eighty text
nine two nine two. This is news Talk, said B. Yes,
News Talk, said B. Taking your calls. I eight hundred
eighty ten eighty Where Max Whitehead is and employment relations
it spurt. By the way, if you do miss any
of the any of the broadcasts and you think I
want to go back and hear that, just go to
iHeartRadio and look for the Weekend Collective and just click
(21:16):
on that and awhere you go. I've actually did it.
There's a new version of iHeart Radio. It's been updated
where you can literally save the Weekend Collective as a
pre set and you click on it and let's go.
Do you want to listen to the panel? Do you
want to listen to the health Hub? Do you want
to listen to Max on Smart Money? And away you go. Okay,
it's that easy, right, Let's go to the call show
with Max.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
Yep, bring it on, Steven Hi, Hey, Steve.
Speaker 6 (21:40):
Game X. We don't have to start a listening. I
thought I was listening to John Hart. You sound very
much like John Hart, who was with Flitchers for a
long time.
Speaker 4 (21:51):
Oh gosh, I remember the name from way back, but
I thought he was an All Black captain coach coach.
Ye same guy. Oh look, I can tell you a
story about him, because way back in time he actually
my story. Go go fair enough, fair enough, That's how
we hit in that shut up, Stephen, go go, I've
(22:15):
been told.
Speaker 6 (22:16):
Thanks man, Yeah, thanks for letting me talk. I'm in
my sixties and started working the seventies, and redundancy wasn't
even a word, I guess. Anyway, I worked for a
pretty well known timber hardware company for twenty years, worked
my way up the ladder, and anyway, he got made
redundant for being there for twenty years, and it was
(22:38):
a it was a friendly redundance. There was a good payout.
Mys pissed off about. I got a letter to say
that I could respond within so many days if I
felt I was being poorly treated, which I did, but
that meant nothing. So then I joined another company and
started at a similar sort of position and worked there
(23:01):
for seventeen years and then got made redundant, and again
got this letter that said, you know this, if you
have any problems with this, or if you'd like to
give your thoughts, then do so, which of course I did.
I still got made redundant. And my philosophy on being
redundant at that point was whether there's another there's another
(23:22):
job coming somewhere anyway, So I was near retirement and
I started working for a I won't say the name
of the company, but anyway, enjoyed it. And COVID came
and we all got letters to say that we would
be made redundant but if we if we wish to
(23:44):
provide some input into why we shouldn't be, then we
we could. And again I did. Now on those three
occasions and I'm back working. I'm back doing a job
I love. But anyway, on those three occasions, the letters
meant nothing. It was like the management had made up
there on mine. And when I talked to my ex
(24:05):
friends at the last place, I was made redundant from
there's a lot of redundancies going on. They get the
same letter that says, if you wish to say something
about this, but that input from the person being made
redundan is just needless waste of time because they've made
up their mind. That's what I wanted to get across.
Speaker 4 (24:27):
Is there a question in there?
Speaker 6 (24:29):
So how can the employee fight back.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Against the redundancy?
Speaker 5 (24:36):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (24:37):
Yeah, yeah, well that consultation process is there. Actually, I'll
tell you what Steve to do. Exactly thing I advise
any person going through it. You ask the employer questions.
You have a right to have all the information regarding
the company. So if they're saying financially we can't afford
you anymore, we're going through hard times, well, then asked
(24:58):
to see all their financial records, asked to see all
their overheads, asked to see a management still getting coro
club access? Or how many company cars have we got
right now? I mean, these awkward questions they have to answer.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
But what if they answer them and they are squandering
a lot of money on management and stuff? What Stephen
would say, Well, what can I do if it turns
out they've got you know, the CEO is driving a
Rolls Royce for a company car. What do I do then?
Speaker 4 (25:25):
So you can put up an argument in saying, well
they should actually go to a downgrade the motor vehicle.
But ninety percent of the time, tim the employer doesn't
answer the questions, going well, what businesses that are yours?
And what if they don't answer the question, then you've
got them. It's a gotcha moment. Good faith says that
they've got to be responsive and they've got to get
back to you and communicative and they can't lie to you. Okay,
(25:47):
So it's a gotcha moment and twenty thousand dollars a
maximum fine for employers who who don't respond to you
reasonably on those sort of things.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Did you do any of that, Stephen? Did you quest
them on stuff?
Speaker 6 (25:59):
Or of course that we lawyer each time, wrote them
letters and all came to nothing other than a lawyer's
bill for me on each occasion.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
You mentioned before in the earlier part of describing you
talked about a friendly redundancy. What was the context in
which you said a friendly redundancy or did I must
hear that?
Speaker 6 (26:21):
Okay? So after twenty years with it was Cardhold Harvey,
I am and I was in a reasonably good position.
It was one of their first redundancies. So when they
started making international paper more Cardhold Harvey back in the
day when they started making kiwis redundant. They were very
careful and very hospitable about the amount of money that
(26:44):
they the redundancy.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
So they gave you a decent payout, that's what he got.
Speaker 6 (26:48):
Yeah, Yeah, they gave us a whacking grade.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
Payer, which is pretty rare.
Speaker 6 (26:53):
To Stephen, Well, you had your superation annuation on top
of that, so it's very rare.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (27:02):
But look, I'm talking about those people that are going
to be made done in the next two years one year,
and they get this letter that says, you know, if
you wish to discuss it with us, or if you
wish to put your decide, tell us that we're doing
something not right or this is not a good decision.
But everybody I know has done that and never won once,
(27:22):
never kept their job.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Well, that's why I'm saying to you that if the
employer fails to answer that question reasonably, then that's that's
grounds for a breach of good faith. Twenty thousand dollars.
Fine for that, we could take election.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Good stuff. Hey, thanks for your course, Stephen. Actually it's
good to hear that. For people who think they've got
no choice but to accept redundancy, I mean, there would
be people who think, okay, to ask all these questions
when I'm still out of a job. But I guess
if you become a squeakier wheel, maybe doesn't mean you
might get a better payout.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
Or sometimes you could probably get a yeah, you might
get a better pay it, because there'll be settlement if
they fail to answer the question. Max raises it, or
somebody raises it with a personal grievance, we even a
breach of good faith allegation. Then there's sometimes a payment
saying well, we'll give you five thousand dollars if it
goes away.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
Okay, right, Hey, thanks for you. Of course, Stephen really
appreciate it. It is twenty two and a half minutes
to six News Talks a B eight hundred eighty ten
eighty Yes News Talks a B, Tim Beverage Worth, Max
white Hair taking your calls. Richard High Hi, Richard, Hi, Max.
Speaker 5 (28:29):
I just wanted to ask you about those questions that
you suggested people should ask employers, which I totally agree
was how I'd have to say that neither of the
questions as I heard them talked about from the employer
to gentlemen, or the answers that they gay meet that
(28:55):
sort of criteria which is you know that they said,
you can tell us why you don't think you should
be made redundant, and he said, well, I don't know
what he replied, but what you said they should ask,
in fact, is show us the figures that indicate that
you're in deep shit and redundancy is the only solution
(29:16):
that you've got.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
Yeah, because.
Speaker 5 (29:21):
Well, you know there's more. I mean, I wouldn't you know,
it'd be difficult to answer question even if you were
an employer that said, well, why am I being made?
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Well? See in the Unemployment Relations Act is a definition
for good faith. So if the employer is making a
it's in section four if you want to read it,
because it's quite interesting. Here, the different employer is about
to make a decision which may mean the end of
your employment, then their obligation is to do two things.
One is provides of all the information but wait for
(29:51):
this about the retention of your employment. And two is
to provide you an opportunity to make a comment. Now,
obviously two they are all agreeing to, but number one
they don't obviously give you enough information. Some of them do,
but very very few. But they should be flooding you
with information regarding that you know, what is it that
(30:12):
possibly could retain your employment? And quite often the employees
don't know what the employer knows. They don't know what
they don't know, and so one question could lead to another.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
Yes, but I mean, I'm just thinking, I've always got
the philosophy when you ask a question, you should already
know what the answer is going to be. We have
a pretty good idea as to what the answer is
going to do. And you know, like when you ask
a question, why am I being I don't think you
should make me redo it? That's not even really a question.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
No, it's not.
Speaker 5 (30:43):
They don't actually have to. What you need to do
is show us the information that you know validates your
decision to make staff redunder other actions.
Speaker 4 (30:54):
No, I totally agree with you, and you're dead right,
because those are the silly questions that some people do raise.
Is I don't think I should be made And that's
really just a common rather than a question.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
So you make it.
Speaker 4 (31:07):
You make your point pretty good there, Richard. So I
do agree with you. It's got to be a genuine
question in regarding straight to going straight to the heart
of the of the and relative to the redundancy.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Yes, yeah, okay, Hey thanks Richard, thanks for call mate. Yeah, cheers.
I've got a few texts here. One says this, one
says Tim, Why is it that complaints and grievances always
viewed by as negative by employers rather than a genuine
process that could change and improve company processes. That's from Tony.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
I think that's there's some truth in that well, and I.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Guess there'll be every many companies would say, no, no,
we we we love complaints because we love it as
an opportunity to review what we're doing.
Speaker 4 (31:52):
But how often, how often, quite often the complaints are
pretty negative against the management. So and that's why they
are probably a bit averse to it, not openly but
covertly behind behind the scenes.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
You mentioned that HR. It's worth remembering that HR are
there to protect the employer. Really, they're sort of to
filter complaints and sort of try and manage the process.
Is that you saying that if you've got a serious issue,
don't waste your time with HR.
Speaker 4 (32:24):
I think you can raise things of HR, but if
you're not getting anywhere, you should go and get other
help because HR are there to defuse any potential issues
and you imagine they're tactics and doing that. That's actually
the smiling crocodile. Come and talk to us, smiling, come
and talk to us because we can help you. And
sometimes they can, but quite often their advice is really well,
(32:48):
it's much loaded to ensure that the person who pays
their pay is going to be better off and then
the worker.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
I had never thought of it from such a cynical
point of view, but now you point it out, it
feels like, of course that's the way it would roll,
I guess.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
And it's common. And of course they always try to
be very very friendly. They are smiling people and the
very nice crocodiles. They're very nice to talk to. But
and the reality is and they actually hold a lot
of power. Someone goes straight to the top and have
access to the CEO or the managing director, and so
(33:22):
it don't underestimate the powerful people.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
Now this one ties into something I did actually mean
to touch on, which a sick leave. But this is
from Craig. It says, how can my work keep using
my annual leave? As I had run out of sick leave.
Have asked them not to, but they said, I have
to use up some of my annual leave was obviously
he used up all a sick leave. I'm guessing he
(33:47):
might be out of luck.
Speaker 4 (33:48):
No, no, no, good on your tim though he's not.
He's not out of luck. They cannot use his annual
leave for when he is sick. He's got to get
his permissioned before they can do that. So in fact,
I've had a question today.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
So if you have a chronic you know, I don't know,
you've done something you can't work and you've I don't
know how many weeks sickly people have. But if you've
used that up, then what's the employers out on that
as well? Because you know, an employer does want people
to be at work.
Speaker 4 (34:17):
Yeah, good, good question. Because what happens, like you get
ten days sick day and perhaps you've broken a leg
or something, and so you're going to be off for
six weeks. As soon as your ten days runs out,
the employer doesn't have to pay you anything. So it's
about pay.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
So okay, So that Craig's option is that he keeps
us annual leave intact, yes, but that he just doesn't
get paid exactly, So as employer arguably is doing him
a favor by saying you should probably use your annual
leave for this.
Speaker 4 (34:49):
Well, he should get agreement before he actually goes to
helping this. Particularly, Craig said them there, didn't he that
he asked them not to.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Okay, so they asked him not to. But I'm not
sure if Craig realizes that the alternative is not getting paid.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
Yep, it's a zero bank account now, so it's not that.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Friendly sort of option for him, is it. So you
either use your annual leave get paid, or you keep
staying out of work for sickness and no money.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
Yep, you got it. And injury injury is a different
thing because acc keep paying you eighty percent.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Yeah, and if you self employed eighty percent of eighty percent,
which I always thought was a bit ropey. But anyway, um, right,
tell you what. We might just quickly take a break.
We'll come back with a couple more. We've got a
quite a few texts for Max here, as we often
get because sometimes people don't really want to attach their
voice to agrievmans. They've got just in case their bosses
listening and goes that sounds suspicious. We'll be back in
(35:45):
just a moment. It's twelve minutes to six News Talks
head B News Talk said B Tim Beverage with Max Whitehead.
Not long to go, So let's have a look at
a few of the texts. My husband's been employed by
a large New Zealm company for the last four years.
During that entire time, he's been on a fixed term contract.
He's just been informed his contract won't be renewed. The
company has told me he can apply for the same
(36:07):
role he's been doing, but the new position is thirty
thousand less a year. They've said there's no guarantee he'll
be successful. They further emphasize that if he does secure
another job, oh god, that's just disappeared on me. That's
but yeah, before I find the end of that.
Speaker 4 (36:23):
One, that's an interesting scenario.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Contractor. Yeah, they're getting rid of the role he's been
doing as a contractor.
Speaker 4 (36:31):
So he's sort of no, he's on fixed term, which
keep continuing. And then they said, we're we're not going
to renew that.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Oh fixed term contract. That's right? Is that a contractor?
Speaker 3 (36:39):
Is that? Well?
Speaker 4 (36:40):
I think contract machine means employment fixed term. That's a
technical term, dodgy.
Speaker 2 (36:45):
So they're going to offer the same job at thirty
k less.
Speaker 4 (36:49):
That's that sounds dodgy to me too.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Sounds like you need to get some advice, doesn't it.
Speaker 4 (36:53):
Yep, they should come to me because obviously if the
job still exists, then for fixed terms to be terminated,
they've got to have a genuine reason to terminate it. Well,
it's not too many No, No, he's just been told
his contract will not be renewed. So the contract is
coming to an end. Yes, so we're not renewing it.
We're establishing from now on it's going to be done.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
Is this role at thirty k less?
Speaker 4 (37:17):
Again, there's got to be a genuine reason why it
came to an end. And if it's not specified at
the beginning of the fixed term, they can't use that
as the reason that it came to an end.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
No. But I mean, if it's fixed term, he's done
four years or four years is up? Can't they do
what they want?
Speaker 4 (37:31):
No, They've got to have a good reason for it
come to an end, and it's not coming to an end.
Speaker 2 (37:35):
So fixed to Okay? So fixed is a fixed term contract?
A fixed term contract then or what it is?
Speaker 4 (37:40):
But I mean, the only time that a person can
end a contract for a fixed tube, even though the
date's been specified in the contract. Is if it's for
a genuine reason, which was specified at the outset, so
it should.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
Beified it comes to an end in four years. Isn't
that a genuine reason, like four years is up.
Speaker 4 (37:56):
No, it's got to have a good reason. Got to
have a good reason because it's it should be specified
in the written contract at the outset. So at the
moment he signed up, the only reason you're going to
end this contract is because of this and this and
so teachers.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
It's the point in a fixed term contract.
Speaker 4 (38:12):
Well, if quite often it's funding, they won't get funding.
It could come to an end, like teachers and things
like that. There are good reasons. It's a project. It
usually comes to an end. And I tell you what it's.
It's something that's broken quite often and too often.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
Gosh, that is that sounds that does sound quite That
does sound quite complex. Because if I was an employer
and I employed someone for a fixed term contract, I
guess it would be I would be having a fixed
term because the role had come to an end.
Speaker 4 (38:42):
So yeah, I mean, I think the caller should give
me that Texas should give me a call. I think
there's some grounds behind that I'd like to know, but
a lot more information about it and even see the contract.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
Hey, look, we've had a lot of text and I'm
afraid we're not going to get to them all because
by the way, there's beens. What's the story with the
latest sick leave rules? Is there something around sick here?
Speaker 4 (39:04):
Yeah, So everybody used to get ten days before and
even if somebody only worked one day a month, got
ten days sick leave paid sick leave. Whereas now it's
going to be pro rated. So what happens from day one?
It's a proportion what is it, zero point threes So
(39:25):
of every how they work they get actually it's actually
given to them a little bit more, a little bit more,
a little bit more, until it builds up and they've
got a fear period.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
It means that if you're a part time worker, you
don't get the same entitlement for sick leave as a
full time worker. Basic.
Speaker 4 (39:39):
So it's zero three zero yeah, point zero three eighty
five every hour they work. That's accumulating for them to
actually have for sick leave.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
Okay, right, well that was a quick explanation. There we go.
Speaker 4 (39:51):
Well, you imagine that person worked once a month.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
I thought we just finished with a nice text. This
is from Well. It says I had a great experience
with HR when I had issues with my boss. They
looked after me during a redundancy process, probably because I
had a good case for personal grievance which I didn't pursue.
Is that a happy, happy story?
Speaker 4 (40:09):
Well, you know, maybe that's why they looked after you,
because they needed to ensure the boss didn't come to grief.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Okay. And if people want to get in touch with
your Max, because god, it's times.
Speaker 4 (40:21):
Up, it's a big hint there. I think Tyre's turning
to tell us to wind it up.
Speaker 2 (40:24):
There's always a subtle hint when the music starts playing.
Speaker 4 (40:26):
So give me a call on eight hundred and twenty
four to seven ninety three ninety three and just call
Max for the facts.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
Excellent. And if you if you want to catch up
with any of these hours, do go to News Talk,
said B look for the podcast or iHeartRadio. They've redone
the whole app where you can simply save the Weekend Collective.
Go to the Weekend Collective, save it as a preset
and just now click on that and it'll say here
are all the different hours and away you go. You're
sorted thanks to my Producer Tire Award and we look
(40:54):
forward to your company again same time. Next weekend, Sunday
at six is next. We'll just lead with a little
bit of it.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talks it'd be weekends from three pm, 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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!