90-day workplace probation

[The Edge]

Reading all that stuff by "David" - it's almost exactly like J.P.Frusciante, all over again. Sigh.

[::Shocker]

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

- All businesses able to fire people within a 90 day trial, no questions asked.

1. It's not "no questions asked". The 90 day trial period only stops employees bringing grievances on the basis of unjustified dismissal. It does *not* prevent grievances on the basis of discrimination, harassment, or unjustifiable disadvantage.

2. The process of recruiting an employee, providing training and bringing them up to speed with the workplace is costly. Having spent precious time and money inducting an employee, employers are generally loathe to dismiss them on a whim unless they consider that the employee is not salvageable. Despite what the NZG massive apparently thinks, dismissal is never the first or preferred option of most employers.

3. The DOL's report on the first year in operation of the 90 day law clearly indicates that there are benefits for employees. 75% of them retained their employment at the conclusion of the trial period. 40% of them would never have been offered the job in the first place if the employer didn't have the protection of a trial period to fall back on.

4. Bearing in mind that trial periods of six to twelve months are common in other OECD countries, I don't think that the 90 day period in NZ is particularly onerous at all.

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

- Unions unable to access workplaces without employer consent.

1. National's proposal is that while union access to workplaces should depend on employer consent, that consent may not be unreasonably withheld.

2. Thus an employer would not be able to withhold consent on purely ideological grounds, i.e. they disagree with collective bargaining, or they don't want union organising on site. The employer's actions in withholding consent will be assessed by the ERA/EC on objective grounds.

3. Under the current law, even severe inconvenience to the employer does not allow them to withhold consent. So from time to time, union reps deliberately time their visits to cause maximum disruption to the employer. "What's that, you need to complete this part of the construction process by the end of today, otherwise you'll incur contractual penalties? Too bad, UNION VISIT!! Get our union men out of their trucks now, otherwise we'll ask the ERA to impose a penalty on you." This is presumably what the amendment is aimed at.

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

- No more 'pedantic' scrutiny of employer processes, so employers no longer have to follow employment relation law to the word. Might as well call it the Employment Relations Guidelines.

It simply doesn't work like that. The ERA 2000 does not set out a prescriptive list of requirements that employers must follow when they dismiss an employee. It has never set out such a list. What it does say in s 103A is the following:

For the purposes of section 103(1)(a) and (b), the question of whether a dismissal or an action was justifiable must be determined, on an objective basis, by considering whether the employer's actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred.

When an employer dismisses an employee, and the employee challenges their dismissal in the ERA/EC, this is the test that is applied to the employer's actions.

Note the use of the word "would". The employer's actions are assessed against the exceptionally high standard of what a fair and reasonable employer WOULD do, not COULD do (as the law used to be prior to the ERA 2000). Basically the law supposes that there is only ONE way that a fair and reasonable employer would act in carrying out a dismissal, and if they don't precisely act in that manner, then the dismissal will be procedurally flawed even if it was substantially justifiable (and the employee will get $$$).

This is IMHO a rubbish piece of law. It's indisputable that two or more people acting fairly and reasonably can arrive at different conclusions. I don't know exactly how National proposes to achieve its aim here, but I assume they will be amending s 103A to stop the ERA/EC from holding employers to ridiculously high, almost inhuman standards of behaviour.

[xor]

3. The DOL's report on the first year in operation of the 90 day law clearly indicates that there are benefits for employees. 75% of them retained their employment at the conclusion of the trial period. 40% of them would never have been offered the job in the first place if the employer didn't have the protection of a trial period to fall back on.

Can you delve a bit deeper into this statement please? I don't understand why an employer would hire someone if they didn't see some benefit in doing so already, 90 day trial or not.

[Juice]

Originally Posted by Ab

There are two sharp divisions of opinion here by the looks of things.

People who have started a business and/or have been personally responsible for hiring employees think the probation period is a great idea, people who haven't think it's terrible.

People who have worked overseas think it's a great idea, people who have never worked anywhere other than NZ think it's terrible.

Nice summary.
These reforms are a good thing for NZ.
End of story.

[_Incubus_]

Its in place here in Australia, for most positions its a 3 months probation, I just started a new job with a 6 month probation. As the boss it is a great process for dealing with people that lie to get a job, where the performance does not live up to the interview or cv and on the other side I dont really care, I'm confident of getting through my 6 months without a problem.

[xor]

Why have employment laws if it's going to get over-rided with this policy? It underminds whatever processes are currently in place that are there to 'protect' the employee.

[::Shocker]

Originally Posted by xor

Can you delve a bit deeper into this statement please? I don't understand why an employer would hire someone if they didn't see some benefit in doing so already, 90 day trial or not.

Not sure if I get the gist of what you're asking, but:

From a small employer's perspective, every time you sign a contract of employment you take an enormous financial risk (obviously not such a concern for large corporate employers). And bearing in mind that the primary remedy under the ERA 2000 is reinstatement, you could be taken to the cleaners in the employment institutions and then ordered to reinstate the fired employee

So with that in mind, sometimes when employers have a marginal or inexperienced applicant, the risk/reward ratio is too risky to offer employment. All the quoted statement means is that 40% of the employers canvassed in the survey found that the 90 day rule reduced their exposure to financial risk enough to "take a chance" on those candidates. At least, that's how I read it.

The full report is available here.

[ChaosWulf]

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

Lots of stuff

Righty-ho. Let's see if we can get all that lovely narrative into a nutshell, ok?
Businesses have the right to fire people within a 90 day trial, EXCEPT for cases of discrimination, harassment, or unjustifiable disadvantage. That said, if there are cases of discrimination, harassment, or unjustifiable disadvantage, the ERA doesn't have to look at them anyway, if it considers them trivial or just a pain in the butt.
Regarding dismissal procedures, I can only go with the Stuff article that states "simple technical breaches of dismissal processes" as being the sort of "pedantic scrutiny" that will be over looked. So essentially would this indicate that the "2 verbal warnings & 1 formal written warning" process is now essentially just a courtesy and no longer required - as it's not going to be legally penalised when NOT followed?

I can see where you're coming from, but this just seems to be a whole heap of "we set the rules, you follow the rules, you may get booted out anyway if we decide you're a) not a good cultural fit for the company, or b) you don't work 12 hour days while being paid for 8, or even c) the snarky bitch of an office manager doesn't like you - and just you try pinning us for discrimination because you can't prove it. Try getting the union in to negotiate on your behalf and we won't let them. Try going to the ERA and they can refuse you because they just darn well feel like it. Thank you and have a nice day".

[ChaosWulf]

Incidentally ::Shocker, I do appreciate you stating your opinion without taking the autistic toddler approach. It is rather refreshing

[cyc]

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

Note the use of the word "would". The employer's actions are assessed against the exceptionally high standard of what a fair and reasonable employer WOULD do, not COULD do (as the law used to be prior to the ERA 2000). Basically the law supposes that there is only ONE way that a fair and reasonable employer would act in carrying out a dismissal, and if they don't precisely act in that manner, then the dismissal will be procedurally flawed even if it was substantially justifiable (and the employee will get $$$).

I don't really want to comment on this debate but I can't let such a blatant piece of intellectual dishonesty pass by. You're absolutely WRONG WRONG WRONG re: the above. Look, don't pretend to know something that you don't -- it's just unseemly.

If you think that employees will always get $$ because their dismissals were procedurally flawed but otherwise substantially justifiable, you clearly haven't read enough EC and ERA decisions. On plenty of occasions, the ERA have refused to award monetary remedies or substantially reduced them on account of contribution by employees-complainants. A cursory search on the Herald's website should net you a few examples. More importantly, your understanding of s 103A and how the EC has applied it is plain wrong at best and, at worst, outright dishonest. Seeing that I actually know a bit about the law and know where to look for the facts, here are some words from the EC itself (from Air NZ v Hudson):

“[120] This approach effectively restores to the Authority and the Court what Williamson J called the duty of inquiry and the right of judgment [22 (1982) ERNZ Sel Cas 59; [1983] ACJ 653, at p 89; p 688.] However, the s 103A requirement for the Authority and the Court to stand back and determine the matter on an objective basis by evaluating the employer’s actions does not give an unbridled licence to substitute their views for that of an employer. Their role is instead to ask if the action of the employer amounted to what a fair and reasonable employer would have done and evaluate the employer’s actions by that objective standard. It may mean that the Court reaches a different conclusion from that of the employer but, provided this is done appropriately, that is objectively and with regard to all the circumstances at the time the dismissal occurred, a conclusion different from that of the employer may be a proper outcome.”

In 2009, the EC reviewed the above decision and maintained that this was the correct statement of law and that it would guide its future decisions and the work of the ERA. It's one thing to like/dislike a law for your own reasons; it's altogether something else to outright lie or (at best) exaggerate to make a point. Have some respect for the members of the judiciary who actually try a hell of a lot harder than you did in generating your load of garbage.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

So essentially would this indicate that the "2 verbal warnings & 1 formal written warning" process is now essentially just a courtesy and no longer required - as it's not going to be legally penalised when NOT followed?

I believe that it has only ever been a courtesy. That is to say, I don't believe that procedure is prescribed as such in law. I stand to be corrected, but that is my understanding.

Just for example, my new employer (a large one which I expect to be familiar with this) sets out in my contract the warning procedure as:

1. First warning (verbal)
2. Final warning (written)
3. Dismissal

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

All the quoted statement means is that 40% of the employers canvassed in the survey found that the 90 day rule reduced their exposure to financial risk enough to "take a chance" on those candidates. At least, that's how I read it.

So business, who profit from workers losing their rights have said it’s been a good thing for for this to happen? OMG!

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

From a small employer's perspective, every time you sign a contract of employment you take an enormous financial risk

Businesses take risks, they get the reward. Smart businesses are able to minimise the risk ie, put in place a process that will improve or get rid of a bad worker. Its ridiculous to take away the employment process to protect bosses from their own stupidity at the expense of workers.

Some bosses are crap at tax law should they run to the government asking them to legislate that someone else pay for their poor management/


Also

[cyc]

On balance I think I'll support the extension of the probation period PROVIDED that the scheme is unmistakeably made unavailable to any employer that has suffered any substantive adverse findings at the ERA/EC, committed any offence against the Holidays Act, and/or any offense against the Health and Safety in Employment Act in the last 2 years. A vast majority of decent, responsible employers won't be affected and there will be some potection for employees from obvious or at least likely scumbags.

[chubby]

^^ john and the boys will appreciate that....
it's good to know there's a vigilant citizenry keeping you honest.

[::Shocker]

Originally Posted by cyc

If you think that employees will always get $$ because their dismissals were procedurally flawed but otherwise substantially justifiable, you clearly haven't read enough EC and ERA decisions.

Compensation that has been reduced to some extent under s 124 by virtue of an employee's contributing behaviour must still be paid by the employer. They're still out of pocket for a procedural deficiency in an otherwise substantively justifiable dismissal. And where compensation is deemed appropriate, it's not common that any conduct on the employee's part is assessed as being so blameworthy as to entirely cancel the award made in their favour.

All I was saying was that procedural missteps can be costly, especially for a small employer. The ERA 2000 is clearly targeted at large employers and unions. I don't think you can dispute that.

***

Look, I'm plenty familiar with Judge Shaw's decision in Hudson, and especially her statement that s 103A doesn't give Authority or Court an unbridled licence to substitute their views for that of the employer. And yes, her approach was upheld by the full Court in Air NZ v V. But to be absolutely blunt, while the Employment Court says that s 103A doesn't empower them to substitute their views for those of the employer, that doesn't change the fact that that is precisely what happens both there and in the ERA.

I'm sure you're familiar with the EC's decision in X v ADHB? You know, the doctor who engaged in what the Judge himself described as "blameworthy" and "aberrant" conduct that arguably constituted serious misconduct. Remember how Judge Colgan said that:

"… a fair and reasonable public health provider would not have dismissed the plaintiff. Rather, it would have applied a variety of sanctions and behavioural correctives and safeguards with a view to ensuring that such misconduct would not recur.”

So here's a situation where the employee admits that he engaged in blameworthy conduct that fell short of commonly accepted standards of conduct for senior physicians, the Judge himself arguably considers that the employee's actions met the test of serious misconduct, and yet the dismissal is not upheld. Instead, it is considered that a fair and reasonable employer in the DHB's place would have applied sanctions and "behavioural correctives". Of course there were procedural flaws in the DHB's investigation, but seriously, you tell me how that is not substituting the Court's own view for that of the employer? How does that not require the employer to be more generous or benevolent than it was?

I stand by what I said.

(And FWIW, I have the utmost respect for the judges of the EC. I just think that in respect of this particular provision, they've got the wrong end of the stick).

[Ab]

Reality check: 90% of NZ businesses employ 20 or fewer employees.

[Lightspeed]

Yeah, but what % of NZ employees work for a company of 20 people or less?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

So business, who profit from workers losing their rights have said it’s been a good thing for for this to happen? OMG!

Businesses take risks, they get the reward. Smart businesses are able to minimise the risk ie, put in place a process that will improve or get rid of a bad worker.

Putting in place risk-minimisation HR processes is often something that small businesses don't have time to do. They're too busy working.

If you're a sparky and you've started a business wiring up airconditioning units, anything that takes you out of a ceiling and uses up hours that could be spent inside a ceiling wiring up an airconditioning unit hurts you and your family. Time spent diligently developing risk-minimisation HR processes is time that you're not in a ceiling wiring up an airconditioning unit.

Hiring someone who says he loves being inside a ceiling wiring up airconditioning units but who then turns out to be claustrophobic and colourblind with a P habit is something that might result in you going out of business and your family ending up on the street. Too risky. Safest course of action? Make do and don't hire anyone. Net impact on society: a job just evaporated.

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by Ab

Hiring someone who says he loves being inside a ceiling wiring up airconditioning units but who then turns out to be claustrophobic and colourblind with a P habit is something that might result in you going out of business and your family ending up on the street. Too risky. Safest course of action? Make do and don't hire anyone. Net impact on society: a job just evaporated.

But I would argue the current law already addresses these concerns reasonably. You can already dismiss people with a P habit/claustrophobic/colourblind if it's going to affect their performance. A common misconception is that you need two warnings before you can be dismissed - THIS IS NOT THE CASE. You can be dismissed on a first occasion for serious performance issues or serious misconduct.

I have huge concerns with the 90 day trial

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by David

Unions as I see them are professional muck raking organisations who use a collective to not "ensure employees are looked after" but to "ensure employers are screwed over".

Unions don't want to screw employers over. If they screw employers over then businesses shut down, which means union members lose their jobs. I should clarify: MOST unions. I'm not convinced about UNITE's intentions, they kind of piss me off.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Putting in place risk-minimisation HR processes is often something that small businesses don't have time to do. They're too busy working.

If a small business doesn’t take the time to check up on applicants then it’s their fault for taking the attitude that they’ll take the first person that comes along. (Which now they can just continue to keep doing with no accountability to hiring). For business's that have taken the time to adequate screening & ended up with a dud there won’t be an issue getting rid of them (& more economical).

Originally Posted by Ab

Hiring someone who says he loves being inside a ceiling wiring up airconditioning units but who then turns out to be claustrophobic and colourblind with a P habit is something that might result in you going out of business and your family ending up on the street. Too risky. Safest course of action? Make do and don't hire anyone. Net impact on society: a job just evaporated.

This legislation is not going to make it any easier for bad workers to get a job. Employees are still going to do all they can to hire the people who are the best suited for the job (ie, qualification and experience wise) and not hire those undesirables who don’t make it past the interview & checks etc.

[::Shocker]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

(Which now they can just continue to keep doing with no accountability to hiring).

Hiring and firing is not something that small business owners enjoy doing. We would much rather be working directly in our business. Churning through employees is not in our best interests, and as a consequence we generally seek to avoid it.

I really don't think you have any idea what life is like for a small business owner

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

I have huge concerns with the 90 day trial

The loopholes it creates for bad employers to abuse is unethical to say the least.

Employer takes someone on . . . finds out

your boyfriend is Asian . . . bye
you're gay . . . bye
you live with your partner & you're not married . . . bye
that guys your father . . . bye
you're religious . . . bye

I'm not saying that this will be the norm but the it's stupid that there wasn't a better to help business than this.

[ChaosWulf]

::Shocker - dare I ask when was the last time you were a job seeker?

[Vrtigo]

too many women in a mans world. this is the result.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

you're religious . . . bye

See? Told you there was an up side.

[ChaosWulf]

Ab - I have a rolled up newspaper with your name on it

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

Hiring and firing is not something that small business owners enjoy doing. We would much rather be working directly in our business. Churning through employees is not in our best interests, and as a consequence we generally seek to avoid it.

No shit.

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Employees are still going to do all they can to hire the people who are the best suited for the job (ie, qualification and experience wise) and not hire those undesirables who don’t make it past the interview & checks etc.

The better they do this, the less hiring & firing going on.

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

I really don't think you have any idea what life is like for a small business owner

I was involved in my mothers small business until I left uni so I know it's not easy.

oh yeah, these make my POV better right?

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Employer takes someone on . . . finds out

your boyfriend is Asian . . . bye
you're gay . . . bye
you live with your partner & you're not married . . . bye
that guys your father . . . bye
you're religious . . . bye

Add to that list:

You speak up about dodgy health and safety protocol
You are affiliated to a political party
You indicate interest in union membership
You attempt to negotiate extra conditions to your agreement
You stand up to your legal entitlement to be treated with good faith by the employer (*the biggest complaint I hear about is young workers being 'bullied'/harassed by their employers).

Not good.

[ChaosWulf]

And further:
You can't work overtime because you have kids (something they knew when they hired you).
You won't put up with being belittled at the morning meetings.
You raise valid questions about outdated procedures.
You look better than the aging office bitch.
You won't make the boss a coffee at his whim as you have your own fucking work to do, it's not in your job description and you're not his fucking PA.

... and yes, these are all issues I've dealt with just within ONE company.

[::Shocker]

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

::Shocker - dare I ask when was the last time you were a job seeker?

Job seeking right now. Although if cyc's earlier assessment of my abilities is correct, I may reconsider the profession that I'm seeking to join

[cyc]

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

Compensation that has been reduced to some extent under s 124 by virtue of an employee's contributing behaviour must still be paid by the employer. They're still out of pocket for a procedural deficiency in an otherwise substantively justifiable dismissal.
...

All I was saying was that procedural missteps can be costly, especially for a small employer. The ERA 2000 is clearly targeted at large employers and unions. I don't think you can dispute that.

Do you think that if you surreptitiously shift the goalpost enough and/or pretend that you never wrote what you actually did, everyone else will just be too dumb and blind to realise it? Here's what you wrote:

Basically the law supposes that there is only ONE way that a fair and reasonable employer would act in carrying out a dismissal, and if they don't precisely act in that manner, then the dismissal will be procedurally flawed even if it was substantially justifiable (and the employee will get $$$).

... the employee WILL get $$$. You never, ever bothered to clarify your statement until you were called up on it. Hey, why let the truth dilute the impact of your exaggerations? Who's disputing that the Act tends to assume a world view based on "how the big boys do it"? I didn't. Stop setting up red herrings.

Look, I'm plenty familiar with Judge Shaw's decision in Hudson, and especially her statement that s 103A doesn't give Authority or Court an unbridled licence to substitute their views for that of the employer. And yes, her approach was upheld by the full Court in Air NZ v V. But to be absolutely blunt, while the Employment Court says that s 103A doesn't empower them to substitute their views for those of the employer, that doesn't change the fact that that is precisely what happens both there and in the ERA.

Worthless non-sequitur. Your assumption is that if the Court postulates an assessment of what an objectively reasonable employer knowing all the relevant facts and circumstances would do and come to a view that the employer's conduct is unreasonable, they are necessarily doing some sort of "My view is better than yours, Mr Employer. Eat the judicial fiat!" stunt. It is not. And in no way does this test not accommodate the concept of a reasonable employer covering a wide continum.

If you actually know anything about the law, you'd understand that objective tests necessarily require the fact-finder to look at all the relevant issues and views and not just blindly defer to any one party. More importantly, nothing you've written actually proves what you wrote previously. You wrote:

Basically the law supposes that there is only ONE way that a fair and reasonable employer would act in carrying out a dismissal

Clearly, you've done nothing to prove this point except continually asserting it.

I'm sure you're familiar with the EC's decision in X v ADHB? You know, the doctor who engaged in what the Judge himself described as "blameworthy" and "aberrant" conduct that arguably constituted serious misconduct. Remember how Judge Colgan said that:

Again, you have no idea what you are on about. The very essence of s 103A and the deliberate substitution of the "What would an objectively reasonable employer do in the circumstances" test for the "What can he/she/it" do test, which was deliberately inserted into the ERA by the then Labour government, required the Court to adopt this approach. Do you understand the concept of parliamentary sovereignty? Parliament makes a statute and the courts are required to apply it.

And because you just feel the need to take a crack at the EC, you conveniently ignore the fact that the spirit and actual provisions of the Act make it clear that (1) serious and abhorrent conduct itself does not always require dismissal and/or protect any decision to dismiss and (2) the Act requires procedure propriety. If you don't like these facts, your problem is with parliament. Take it up with your local MP.

And, yeah, I am sure the Full Court of the EC is just completely wrong on s 103A. And somehow the Rodney Harrison QCs, Kit Toogood QCs, Kaisley Thompson and Caisleys, EMPU etc of this world are all just morons who didn't know that they can appeal on points of law to the Court of Appeal. We'll all just ask Shocker for advice instead!

I stand by what I said.

(And FWIW, I have the utmost respect for the judges of the EC. I just think that in respect of this particular provision, they've got the wrong end of the stick).[/quote]

I stand by what I said too. You're intellectually dishonest and clueless.

[ChaosWulf]

Huh, I thought you did pretty well explaining yourself while not being offensive. Of course I'm not in law, but your argument held water and cyc hasn't exactly responded to you. Good luck with the job hunt

Edit - Ok, cyc HAS responded! Yikes. Play nice.

[cyc]

By and large I don't think Shocker is wrong on many of the things he wrote, except for the exceptionally cheap jibes at the judges of the Employment Court (having spent years working for judges I tend to find that a proverbial gear-grinder) and his rather shallow understanding of s 103A and a few connected fundamental concepts.

Since I don't otherwise have a very significant attachment for this issue one way or another, I am bowing out of this.

[David]

I didn't know stating an opinion that wasn't "Here, enjoy a silver spoon I'll delicately place in your mouth that allows you to act like a petulant cunt in the workplace without any recourse as to your actions" was autistic, seems you learn something every day thanks to wonderful online psycho analysis.

But, again - this all comes back down to "Be a better employee". How many of you fuck around on this site during your employers time? Would you feel personally agrieved if you were let go because of that?

Trial periods as people have pointed out are common place in the world. People will not fire you if you're making money for them, so uhm.. uh, duh? Make fucking money for them or go and try your own business out.

I guarantee, one bad employment decision later you'll be regretting it.. oh no, wait, you won't - because National have ensured you can get rid of a rotten apple within a particular time.

Thank god for that then.

[MrTTTT]

Hey, did you guys know that cyc is a lawyer?

[David]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

Hey, did you guys know that cyc is a lawyer?

And? That makes his opinion only as valuable as anyone else who has read the ERA.

[MrTTTT]

I was being (I don't know what the word is), because every post he makes has reference to the fact that he is a lawyer. He loves us to know how important and intelligent he is!

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by fidgit

I'd suggest you could fire someone faster than that, with 3 warnings, as each warning doesn't need to be for the same thing at all.)

wot

each warning needs to come with training and a process of allowing the employee to learn from the training.

it was my understanding you cant fire someone when they've only had one warning for some(single)thing they've done wrong

bob drops some product
bob swears at a customer
bob is late for work

first gets a meeting regarding carelessness.
second is not related so doesnt come under second warning

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

The loopholes it creates for bad employers to abuse is unethical to say the least.

Employer takes someone on . . . finds out

your boyfriend is Asian . . . bye
you're gay . . . bye
you live with your partner & you're not married . . . bye
that guys your father . . . bye
you're religious . . . bye

I'm not saying that this will be the norm but the it's stupid that there wasn't a better to help business than this.

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

1. It's not "no questions asked". The 90 day trial period only stops employees bringing grievances on the basis of unjustified dismissal. It does *not* prevent grievances on the basis of discrimination, harassment, or unjustifiable disadvantage.

Hmmm...