1
00:00:09,133 --> 00:00:12,933
Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from newstalks 'b Follow this

2
00:00:13,093 --> 00:00:16,213
Speaker 1: and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.

3
00:00:16,733 --> 00:00:21,573
Speaker 2: Government plans to prevent top earners making unjustified dismissal claims.

4
00:00:22,173 --> 00:00:26,853
Speaker 2: The legislation will be introduced to Parliament next year. To

5
00:00:27,053 --> 00:00:29,333
Speaker 2: have a chat about this, we're joined by Gareth Abdnor.

6
00:00:29,453 --> 00:00:32,772
Speaker 2: He is the director and founder of Abdnor Employment Law.

7
00:00:32,933 --> 00:00:34,773
Speaker 2: Gareth a mate, Nice to chat again.

8
00:00:35,693 --> 00:00:37,013
Speaker 3: Oh, it's lovely to be here.

9
00:00:37,133 --> 00:00:39,933
Speaker 4: So Gareth, what exactly can you explain what they mean

10
00:00:40,013 --> 00:00:42,732
Speaker 4: by unjustified dismissal in this case?

11
00:00:44,013 --> 00:00:51,852
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, very very interesting policy. And essentially what I

12
00:00:51,973 --> 00:00:56,973
Speaker 3: understand the proposal to be is that employees can still

13
00:00:57,733 --> 00:01:01,373
Speaker 3: raise a claim for being treated unfairly, but they can't

14
00:01:01,653 --> 00:01:07,173
Speaker 3: raise a claim for being unfairly dismissed in a similar

15
00:01:07,213 --> 00:01:11,693
Speaker 3: way to the day trial period. And so someone dismissed

16
00:01:11,853 --> 00:01:14,533
Speaker 3: under the ninety day trial period could still raise a

17
00:01:14,613 --> 00:01:19,253
Speaker 3: claim for breach of good faith or being disadvantaged, but

18
00:01:19,373 --> 00:01:21,013
Speaker 3: not for the dismissal itself.

19
00:01:22,173 --> 00:01:24,333
Speaker 4: Right, And what are the advantages of making it easier

20
00:01:24,333 --> 00:01:26,093
Speaker 4: to get rid of poor management?

21
00:01:27,613 --> 00:01:33,373
Speaker 3: Yeah? Again, very interesting because it creates this two tier

22
00:01:33,613 --> 00:01:38,212
Speaker 3: system and the arguments that I've heard are that it

23
00:01:38,292 --> 00:01:42,013
Speaker 3: makes it easier to move on someone who doesn't have

24
00:01:42,053 --> 00:01:43,212
Speaker 3: the chops for the job.

25
00:01:43,493 --> 00:01:44,173
Speaker 4: Yeah.

26
00:01:44,253 --> 00:01:47,573
Speaker 3: So, you know, in much the same way that the

27
00:01:47,693 --> 00:01:52,333
Speaker 3: ninety day trial periods being justified, it lets employers give

28
00:01:52,413 --> 00:01:56,813
Speaker 3: someone a go. Now, while I think that's really convincing

29
00:01:56,893 --> 00:01:59,693
Speaker 3: for the ninety day trial period, I think it's a

30
00:01:59,693 --> 00:02:03,213
Speaker 3: bit of a push for this artificial camp of one

31
00:02:03,253 --> 00:02:07,253
Speaker 3: hundred and eighty k. You know, why can you not

32
00:02:07,813 --> 00:02:12,053
Speaker 3: unfairly dismiss someone earning one hundred and seventy nine as

33
00:02:12,093 --> 00:02:15,173
Speaker 3: soon as they earn an extra thousand dollars you can

34
00:02:15,893 --> 00:02:19,493
Speaker 3: sack them without consequences. It seems a bit strange to me.

35
00:02:19,893 --> 00:02:20,453
Speaker 2: So would you bet?

36
00:02:20,493 --> 00:02:22,373
Speaker 4: Would it be better? And I'm not sure if this

37
00:02:22,413 --> 00:02:24,533
Speaker 4: is possible, but would it be better if it was

38
00:02:24,573 --> 00:02:27,613
Speaker 4: defined as people in managerial roles? Because there's people in

39
00:02:27,653 --> 00:02:30,613
Speaker 4: on earning one hundred and eighty K. Engineers, as a

40
00:02:30,693 --> 00:02:33,453
Speaker 4: caller said just before, can be earning over one hundred

41
00:02:33,453 --> 00:02:35,613
Speaker 4: and eighty K, but they're not in a managerial role.

42
00:02:37,213 --> 00:02:42,173
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, that's certainly an interesting idea. I think

43
00:02:42,213 --> 00:02:46,453
Speaker 3: the difficulty would be in implementing that. I think from

44
00:02:46,453 --> 00:02:50,053
Speaker 3: my perspective, being boots on the ground dealing with these

45
00:02:50,093 --> 00:02:55,613
Speaker 3: claims day in day out. This proposed change I think

46
00:02:55,813 --> 00:02:59,493
Speaker 3: signals the fact that the pendulums perhaps swung too far

47
00:02:59,613 --> 00:03:05,853
Speaker 3: to one one end. The grievance industry has been created,

48
00:03:06,013 --> 00:03:09,493
Speaker 3: and this is one way of trying to egg that back.

49
00:03:11,933 --> 00:03:14,773
Speaker 3: I think it's a bit artificial, though, and what would

50
00:03:14,813 --> 00:03:21,453
Speaker 3: be better would be to actually give better compensation to

51
00:03:21,573 --> 00:03:26,693
Speaker 3: people who've really been treated poorly and stop this industry

52
00:03:26,933 --> 00:03:31,132
Speaker 3: where anyone who's dismissed knows that if they raise a

53
00:03:31,213 --> 00:03:33,573
Speaker 3: claim it's going to be more cost effective for the

54
00:03:33,613 --> 00:03:37,893
Speaker 3: employer to pay them five grand rather than defend it.

55
00:03:38,853 --> 00:03:43,533
Speaker 2: So, in your expertise, Gareth, you talk about the grievance industry.

56
00:03:43,653 --> 00:03:45,933
Speaker 2: Is that more of a problem at the upper end?

57
00:03:46,093 --> 00:03:49,293
Speaker 2: Is this legislation would target or is that a problem

58
00:03:49,293 --> 00:03:50,093
Speaker 2: across the board.

59
00:03:51,293 --> 00:03:54,493
Speaker 3: I think it's a problem across the board, and in fact,

60
00:03:54,533 --> 00:03:57,533
Speaker 3: I think it's more of a problem on people on

61
00:03:57,813 --> 00:04:03,693
Speaker 3: more moderate incomes. You know, when we're dealing with people

62
00:04:03,733 --> 00:04:09,413
Speaker 3: on high salaries, often they are more alive to the

63
00:04:09,453 --> 00:04:12,293
Speaker 3: fact that if they don't actually fit in the role

64
00:04:12,613 --> 00:04:14,693
Speaker 3: and they're not performing in the role, they're going to

65
00:04:14,693 --> 00:04:19,772
Speaker 3: get moved on anyway, and so I think there's often

66
00:04:19,813 --> 00:04:24,373
Speaker 3: a higher level of pragmatism for those sorts of employees.

67
00:04:25,773 --> 00:04:30,613
Speaker 3: The grievance industry, you know, the no winnow fee type

68
00:04:31,053 --> 00:04:35,333
Speaker 3: arrangement is often more people on modest incomes.

69
00:04:36,453 --> 00:04:39,613
Speaker 4: So currently, right now, so you've got a company and

70
00:04:39,813 --> 00:04:42,853
Speaker 4: you've hired someone and they're proving to be such a

71
00:04:42,853 --> 00:04:45,733
Speaker 4: bad manager that you can see that your company is

72
00:04:45,893 --> 00:04:50,653
Speaker 4: in trouble. What are the options for the people up

73
00:04:50,693 --> 00:04:52,813
Speaker 4: the chain now to deal with that situation if they

74
00:04:52,853 --> 00:04:55,613
Speaker 4: see their company rotting out from underneath them because of

75
00:04:55,653 --> 00:04:57,933
Speaker 4: a bad management choice.

76
00:04:58,213 --> 00:05:03,253
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that's a great question, and the options aren't

77
00:05:03,293 --> 00:05:07,973
Speaker 3: really great. You know, you can go down the performance management,

78
00:05:08,653 --> 00:05:13,013
Speaker 3: which takes time, takes money, and is not without risk.

79
00:05:14,013 --> 00:05:18,173
Speaker 3: Or you can go through a restructure, which is often

80
00:05:18,373 --> 00:05:24,453
Speaker 3: artificial and done to achieve the desired purpose. But you know,

81
00:05:24,493 --> 00:05:28,653
Speaker 3: you have to effectively go through a charade.

82
00:05:29,213 --> 00:05:29,373
Speaker 1: Or.

83
00:05:31,453 --> 00:05:35,253
Speaker 3: You have an honest conversation and sometimes that works, and

84
00:05:35,333 --> 00:05:40,293
Speaker 3: sometimes you get flapped with acclaim. Of course, you know,

85
00:05:40,573 --> 00:05:43,173
Speaker 3: someone who's not performing and is having an impact on

86
00:05:43,213 --> 00:05:48,013
Speaker 3: the business isn't restricted to managers, and we often see

87
00:05:48,053 --> 00:05:52,533
Speaker 3: it with any sort of role that has interaction with

88
00:05:52,613 --> 00:05:57,093
Speaker 3: your clients. And so that's why I think this it's

89
00:05:57,133 --> 00:06:00,813
Speaker 3: not necessarily a bad idea, but it's somewhat artificial because

90
00:06:00,853 --> 00:06:05,853
Speaker 3: it sets up this two tiered structure. Why should someone

91
00:06:06,373 --> 00:06:10,373
Speaker 3: be treated unfairly or not have a fear process simply

92
00:06:10,413 --> 00:06:11,973
Speaker 3: because they're on a higher income.

93
00:06:13,293 --> 00:06:15,253
Speaker 4: So when you talk about this sort of unjustified there

94
00:06:15,293 --> 00:06:18,013
Speaker 4: when you're talking about the unjustified dismissals part of it.

95
00:06:18,213 --> 00:06:21,493
Speaker 4: So if a boss came in and they had enough

96
00:06:21,493 --> 00:06:25,933
Speaker 4: of the manager, would this enable the you know Hollywood

97
00:06:26,053 --> 00:06:30,213
Speaker 4: movie style coming in your fired, get out, you know

98
00:06:30,733 --> 00:06:33,573
Speaker 4: you're out today? You know it would without enable that.

99
00:06:35,053 --> 00:06:38,293
Speaker 3: Well, it's interesting to see because we haven't actually seen

100
00:06:38,693 --> 00:06:44,933
Speaker 3: the draft legislation yet. I haven't seen it. I expect

101
00:06:45,173 --> 00:06:48,973
Speaker 3: that it wouldn't allow that to happen, and it would

102
00:06:49,013 --> 00:06:53,973
Speaker 3: simply be that more lassitude is given to employers dealing

103
00:06:54,053 --> 00:06:58,373
Speaker 3: with these high income earners. I think the devil is

104
00:06:58,413 --> 00:07:01,133
Speaker 3: going to be in the detail. Really, yes, isn't it?

105
00:07:01,173 --> 00:07:03,573
Speaker 4: But I guess the the the plus side of it

106
00:07:03,653 --> 00:07:05,893
Speaker 4: is that if you are in a company and you're

107
00:07:05,933 --> 00:07:07,733
Speaker 4: you know, you're spending a long time and you know

108
00:07:07,773 --> 00:07:10,973
Speaker 4: the company really well, and then instead of taking a

109
00:07:11,053 --> 00:07:12,853
Speaker 4: risk on you to put you in management, because they're

110
00:07:12,853 --> 00:07:14,333
Speaker 4: not going to sure how it turns out, they're going

111
00:07:14,373 --> 00:07:16,693
Speaker 4: to bring someone from outside of the company that has

112
00:07:16,693 --> 00:07:19,733
Speaker 4: a better CV. So, you know, for someone that's been

113
00:07:19,773 --> 00:07:21,613
Speaker 4: working a long time in a company shows what they're worth,

114
00:07:21,653 --> 00:07:24,053
Speaker 4: this might be an easier path up for you to

115
00:07:24,053 --> 00:07:24,693
Speaker 4: prove yourself.

116
00:07:25,573 --> 00:07:29,533
Speaker 3: Oh, definitely, definitely, And we've seen that with the reintroduction

117
00:07:29,693 --> 00:07:34,213
Speaker 3: of the ninety day trial periods. Certainly employers that I

118
00:07:34,333 --> 00:07:38,533
Speaker 3: work with are more open to giving someone a go,

119
00:07:39,213 --> 00:07:43,213
Speaker 3: taking a chance on them because there's less at risk,

120
00:07:44,613 --> 00:07:47,453
Speaker 3: and that will likely be the case for more senior

121
00:07:47,493 --> 00:07:50,413
Speaker 3: people as well. I guess the one thing that I

122
00:07:50,453 --> 00:07:56,173
Speaker 3: found really interesting about the discussions over this proposed change

123
00:07:56,293 --> 00:08:01,053
Speaker 3: is that parties will still be able to agree to

124
00:08:01,213 --> 00:08:07,053
Speaker 3: have protections in their ployment agreements. And so, you know,

125
00:08:07,093 --> 00:08:10,053
Speaker 3: if you're running a comp company and you really want

126
00:08:10,053 --> 00:08:13,853
Speaker 3: to hire a rock star with a great reputation, I

127
00:08:13,933 --> 00:08:16,893
Speaker 3: wouldn't be surprised if that rock star made it a

128
00:08:16,933 --> 00:08:20,053
Speaker 3: requirement if there were protections in the employment agreement.

129
00:08:22,213 --> 00:08:25,373
Speaker 4: But if you're if you're not, if you're not a

130
00:08:25,453 --> 00:08:29,693
Speaker 4: rock star, you you might be limiting your chance of

131
00:08:29,733 --> 00:08:32,333
Speaker 4: getting the promotion if you insist on that clause.

132
00:08:32,933 --> 00:08:35,773
Speaker 3: Definitely, because you're kind of saying really good point.

133
00:08:35,612 --> 00:08:38,453
Speaker 4: You're kind of saying, you're kind of saying, there's a

134
00:08:38,533 --> 00:08:41,453
Speaker 4: chance I might be rubbish.

135
00:08:41,492 --> 00:08:42,093
Speaker 3: That's right.

136
00:08:42,252 --> 00:08:44,612
Speaker 2: Well, Gareth, if this comes in, you're going to be

137
00:08:44,653 --> 00:08:45,773
Speaker 2: a busy man, that's for sure.

138
00:08:46,612 --> 00:08:50,173
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I think so. Interesting time, Yeah, yeah, it.

139
00:08:50,132 --> 00:08:53,253
Speaker 2: Is always good to chat. Thank you very much, Thanks

140
00:08:53,252 --> 00:08:56,292
Speaker 2: a lot, guys. That is Gareth Abdenor, the founder and

141
00:08:56,333 --> 00:08:58,732
Speaker 2: director of abdenaor Employment Law.

142
00:08:59,453 --> 00:09:02,373
Speaker 1: For more from News Talks B listen live on air

143
00:09:02,573 --> 00:09:05,293
Speaker 1: or online, and keep our shows with you wherever you

144
00:09:05,333 --> 00:09:07,773
Speaker 1: go with our podcast on iHeartRadio