Unjustified Dismissal and Covid 19
I had a call the other day from an upset employee. He told me he had been dismissed by his employer using the 90-day trial period available to smaller employers. They are a small company and at time of his dismissal employed five people, so now they are down to four.
When he sent me his letter of dismissal it told him they had monitored his performance over the last couple of weeks and found it not to be up to the standard they would want, so he was dismissed per the 90-day trial clause. It also told him they had partly made the decision as a result of loss of work and revenue due to Covid 19. He was told as he was their highest paid employee this was also a factor.
When I was provided with his IEA it unfortunately makes no mention of a 90-day trail. We are all aware or should be that the 90 trial must be in writing. So, the employer in this case can’t rely on the trial period as an avenue for dismissal.
In addition, a search of the list of employers who have claimed the Covid wage subsidy show that this employer had claimed for all five full time employees sometime after he had been dismissed. Either this was an error or just plain fraud, by claiming for five employees when they only had four.
In brief then not only do they find themselves on the wrong side of an unjustified dismissal claim. They have left themselves open to scrutiny from the Govt re the wage’s subsidy scheme. It clearly states that the subsidy is for 12 weeks and they expect that the employer retains the people it claimed for, for that period.
Why do some employers insist on trying to flout the system is it genuine ignorance, or are they just trying to give it a go?
Take advice people, speak to your accountant about the best way to do this financially. Speak to an ER specialist, talk to the EMA or check the Covid website at www.covid19.govt.nz... but don’t just fly solo.
🎉 Riddle me this, legends! 🎉
He/She who makes it, sells it.
He/She who buys it, doesn't use it.
The user doesn't know they are using it.
What is it?
(Shezz from Ngāruawāhia kindly provided this head-scratcher ... thanks, Shezz!)
Do you think you know the answer? Simply 'Like' this post if you know the answer and the big reveal will be posted in the comments at 2pm on the day!
Want to stop seeing these in your newsfeed?
Head here and hover on the Following button on the top right of the page (and it will show Unfollow) and then click it. If it is giving you the option to Follow, then you've successfully unfollowed the Riddles page.
Some Choice News!
DOC is rolling out a new tool to help figure out what to tackle first when it comes to protecting our threatened species and the things putting them at risk.
Why does this matter? As Nikki Macdonald from The Post points out, we’re a country with around 4,400 threatened species. With limited time and funding, conservation has always meant making tough calls about what gets attention first.
For the first time, DOC has put real numbers around what it would take to do everything needed to properly safeguard our unique natural environment. The new BioInvest tool shows the scale of the challenge: 310,177 actions across 28,007 sites.
Now that we can see the full picture, it brings the big question into focus: how much do we, as Kiwis, truly value protecting nature — and what are we prepared to invest to make it happen?
We hope this brings a smile!
Poll: If we want to reduce speeding, what do you think actually changes driver behaviour? 🛻🚨🚓
In the Post's article on speeding penalties, the question is asked whether speeding fines are truly about road safety, or are they just a way to boost revenue for the Crown?
What do you think? Should speeding motorists receive speeding fines or demerit points?
-
37.6% The sting of a fine (Money talks!)
-
62.4% The threat of demerit points (Nobody wants to lose their license!)
Loading…
