Gull Employment Dispute.

Forums › Off topic › Gull Employment Dispute.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1181978 24-Nov-2014 10:45

Z have made pay at pump. Probably a good thing since when you go in to pay they are too busy making coffees to take your money.

Richard rich.ms

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1182075 24-Nov-2014 12:21

I can believe thay statement

ckc

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1182079 24-Nov-2014 12:33

I don't care about that, because they use good beans and my coffee is more important than everyone else's time.

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1182090 24-Nov-2014 12:42

networkn:
I think people in general need to peg off a little here. It's about intent. It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour. I believe matters should be put into the perspective
of intent, and I don't think intent from the owners has not been made completely clear. People make mistakes, employers included, and wishing someone out of business without all the facts, seems harsh to me.

What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted? The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".

If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1182096 24-Nov-2014 12:53

tigercorp:
networkn:
I think people in general need to peg off a little here. It's about intent. It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour. I believe matters should be put into the perspective
of intent, and I don't think intent from the owners has not been made completely clear. People make mistakes, employers included, and wishing someone out of business without all the facts, seems harsh to me.

What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted? The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".

If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is.

That makes no sense.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1182098 24-Nov-2014 12:56

Wow, I had an employee try to dock me the excess from an accident I had in a company vehicle (after I had told them I didn't feel capable of driving that day)

I told them they would not be doing any such thing as it was their negligence that contributed to the accident. also the clause clearly stated in my contract that if there was an accident in a company vehicle they had to cover the excess.

Anyway, if this is a fact and the employee's have been docked for something partially caused by the employers negligence (not enforcing prepay) I really feel for these guys.

Comments about minimum wage vs. above minimum wages are irrelevant aside from the fact that the less you earn the more it would hurt.

I wonder if there is a bonus for not having any drive off's?

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1182101 24-Nov-2014 13:03

Either way it was an atrocious business practice and it is clear that everyone here is glad to see the end of it.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1182107 24-Nov-2014 13:15

networkn:
tigercorp:
networkn:
I think people in general need to peg off a little here. It's about intent. It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour. I believe matters should be put into the perspective
of intent, and I don't think intent from the owners has not been made completely clear. People make mistakes, employers included, and wishing someone out of business without all the facts, seems harsh to me.

What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted? The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".

If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is.

That makes no sense.

You said "It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour"

I said "What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted?"

I then said "The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".
I found the article I remembered where it says "A Masterton Night 'n Day employment contract contains a "deductions" clause in which the employee agrees to pay for costs including "debts owed to the employer" and "costs associated with dishonesty".

I then said "If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is".
Which means if the employer is interpreting those clauses as the right to take money from the employee due to theft by others then their intent is clearly to take advantage of those in a vulnerable position. They're not interested in due process or ethical behaviour - just worried about not losing money.

I've no issue with a business trying to minimise loss. But not by passing the cost on to those not responsible, just because they can.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1182108 24-Nov-2014 13:23

tigercorp:
networkn:
tigercorp:
networkn:
I think people in general need to peg off a little here. It's about intent. It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour. I believe matters should be put into the perspective
of intent, and I don't think intent from the owners has not been made completely clear. People make mistakes, employers included, and wishing someone out of business without all the facts, seems harsh to me.

What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted? The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".

If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is.

That makes no sense.

You said "It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour"

I said "What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted?"

I then said "The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".
I found the article I remembered where it says "A Masterton Night 'n Day employment contract contains a "deductions" clause in which the employee agrees to pay for costs including "debts owed to the employer" and "costs associated with dishonesty".

I then said "If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is".
Which means if the employer is interpreting those clauses as the right to take money from the employee due to theft by others then their intent is clearly to take advantage of those in a vulnerable position. They're not interested in due process or ethical behaviour - just worried about not losing money.

I've no issue with a business trying to minimise loss. But not by passing the cost on to those not responsible, just because they can.

I was referring to the lack of relationship between someone misunderstanding a clause in a contract, and intent.

I was trying to help you understand that you can't assert intent based on what COULD have been (Regardless of likelyhood) a genuine misunderstanding isn't fair to draw conclusions on, without all the facts which you will likely never have.

In NZ I believe the premise is innocent until proven guilty, and I have no axe to grind despite for most of the discussion trying to show there is the potential for both sides to have skin in the game.

The employee in this situation has chosen the public court of opinion, rather than the employment resolution methods normally employed.

I have said all along that if there was intent to defraud an employee then that employer should be punished, but that there is some wiggle room as to why/how this situation occurred that means there was no specific malicious intent, regardless of how likely or not it is.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1182115 24-Nov-2014 13:34

IMO the only time the person working for the servo should have pay docked is if they come to an agreement to avoid criminal charges when they are part of the crime, like if it was their friends doing the driveoff and they had prior knowledge and unlocked the pumps anyway etc.

Other than that it should go thru the courts. People on wages are paid stuff all because they dont have the risks assocuated with being a business owner or a contractor, as they do not have the reward, they shouldnt take the risk.

Richard rich.ms

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1182124 24-Nov-2014 13:39

networkn: The employee in this situation has chosen the public court of opinion, rather than the employment resolution methods normally employed.

Either way this was a *very* good thing in this particular case.

meesham

973 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1182129 24-Nov-2014 13:42

gzt:
networkn: The employee in this situation has chosen the public court of opinion, rather than the employment resolution methods normally employed.

Either way this was a *very* good thing in this particular case. This and similar practices will end.

Exactly. I don't see how taking it to the media was a bad thing for anyone except the employers abusing their power, it's brought to the attention of everyone these dodgy practices which will now hopefully stop and anyone who continues it is going to get beat up in the press.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1182137 24-Nov-2014 13:53

richms: IMO the only time the person working for the servo should have pay docked is if they come to an agreement to avoid criminal charges when they are part of the crime, like if it was their friends doing the driveoff and they had prior knowledge and unlocked the pumps anyway etc.

The contract dishonesty clause providing for deduction is intended for use when an employee is correctly dismissed for theft. Irrespective of criminal charges pending as a result of that offense.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1182151 24-Nov-2014 14:08

gzt:
The contract dishonesty clause providing for deduction is intended for use when an employee is correctly dismissed for theft. Irrespective of criminal charges pending as a result of that offense.

Exactly, and it should not happen at any other time.

Richard rich.ms

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1182279 24-Nov-2014 17:30

gzt: Either way it was an atrocious business practice and it is clear that everyone here is glad to see the end of it.

Well if it happened equally across the board..... you know when senior management get held financially liable for drops in profit, share price, etc etc etc..... now THAT would be fun.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11