Trade Practices and unfair dismissal

[David Moss]

OK, I admit it.
The legislation is impenetrable, I can't understand it.

I'm told that somewhere in the Trade Practices Act is a section which
talks about unfair dismissal and fails to exempt small business.

WTF is it?

--
DM
personal opinion only

[V©]

As far as I know at this present time small businesses are not exempt from
unfair dismissal laws.




"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d3a4913779851589896d4@news.bigpond.com.. .
> OK, I admit it.
> The legislation is impenetrable, I can't understand it.
>
> I'm told that somewhere in the Trade Practices Act is a section which
> talks about unfair dismissal and fails to exempt small business.
>
> WTF is it?
>
> --
> DM
> personal opinion only

[Happy Larry]

"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d3a4913779851589896d4@news.bigpond.com.. .
> OK, I admit it.
> The legislation is impenetrable, I can't understand it.
>
> I'm told that somewhere in the Trade Practices Act is a section which
> talks about unfair dismissal and fails to exempt small business.
>
> WTF is it?
>
> --
> DM
> personal opinion only


Could this be it David?

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974
- SECT 53B
Misleading conduct in relation to employment


A corporation shall not, in relation to employment that is to be, or may be,
offered by the corporation or by another person, engage in conduct that is
liable to mislead persons seeking the employment as to the availability,
nature, terms or conditions of, or any other matter relating to, the
employment.



Regards,

Larry

[Rod Speed]

V© <nope@naaaa.naaa.naaa> wrote

> As far as I know at this present time small businesses are not exempt from
> unfair dismissal laws.

They are, the only thing that will change is the number of
employees that qualifys for being exempt from the provisions.


> "David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d3a4913779851589896d4@news.bigpond.com.. .
>> OK, I admit it.
>> The legislation is impenetrable, I can't understand it.
>>
>> I'm told that somewhere in the Trade Practices Act is a section which
>> talks about unfair dismissal and fails to exempt small business.
>>
>> WTF is it?
>>
>> --
>> DM
>> personal opinion only

[Rod Speed]

David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote

> OK, I admit it.
> The legislation is impenetrable, I can't understand it.

The problem is with your ear to ear dog shit.

> I'm told that somewhere in the Trade Practices Act is a section which
> talks about unfair dismissal and fails to exempt small business.

There isnt, unfair dismissal isnt covered by the TPA, stupid.

There is however a provision relevant to misleading when employing.

> WTF is it?

[Peter]

David Moss wrote:

> OK, I admit it.
> The legislation is impenetrable, I can't understand it.
>
You are not the only one. It is likely that High Court of Australia judges
could have similar problems.

[V©]

At this point in time though small business are not excempt are they? I am
not being smart I am just asking.

If the government introduces the proposed changes then any business with
less than 100 employees will be exempt from unfair dismissal laws.

In my opinion the change is not a good thing as most places (but not all) I
have worked have had less than 100 employees. It is simple if the business
has a valid reason then fine they can sack who ever they like otherwise they
should pay redundancy or other payments to compensate. If they do those
things employers will not have a problem with unfair dismissal.

Anyway this whole industrial relations thing is a bit up in the air at the
moment. The changes are, at this time, proposed and nothing more.


"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3jathrFp5cj4U1@individual.net...
> V© <nope@naaaa.naaa.naaa> wrote
>
>> As far as I know at this present time small businesses are not exempt
>> from unfair dismissal laws.
>
> They are, the only thing that will change is the number of
> employees that qualifys for being exempt from the provisions.
>
>
>> "David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d3a4913779851589896d4@news.bigpond.com.. .
>>> OK, I admit it.
>>> The legislation is impenetrable, I can't understand it.
>>>
>>> I'm told that somewhere in the Trade Practices Act is a section which
>>> talks about unfair dismissal and fails to exempt small business.
>>>
>>> WTF is it?
>>>
>>> --
>>> DM
>>> personal opinion only
>
>

[Stan Pierce]

"V©" <nope@naaaa.naaa.naaa> wrote in message
news:42d046c4$0$54207$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
(snipped)
> It is simple if the business has a valid reason then fine they can sack who
> ever they like otherwise they should pay redundancy or other payments to
> compensate. If they do those things employers will not have a problem with
> unfair dismissal.

Strange how this mindset has developed.
The fact is an employer is the boss, he started the business, HE is the
business, the business exists because HE used his initiative to take the plunge
and do something. The employer makes the decisions as to how the business will
succeed or not and no-one should be telling the employer how to run his
business. He can employ and sack who he likes...and I mean LIKES. You can't
have people in your business you dont like...it doesn't work. All the
atmosphere of the workplace is affected by it.

[Phil Allison]

"Stan Pierce"
>
> "V©"
>
>> It is simple if the business has a valid reason then fine they can sack
>> who ever they like otherwise they should pay redundancy or other payments
>> to compensate. If they do those things employers will not have a problem
>> with unfair dismissal.
>
>
> Strange how this mindset has developed.


** Only to the impenetrably thick headed & rabid fascists.


> The fact is an employer is the boss, he started the business, HE is the
> business, the business exists because HE used his initiative to take the
> plunge and do something.


** The "boss" has financial control of the business - but does not own the
employees.

They are not cattle - you ass.


> The employer makes the decisions as to how the business will succeed or
> not and no-one should be telling the employer how to run his business.


** Business activity is governed by an enormous body of law - eg tax law,
the criminal law, consumer law, all the standards, licenses and approvals
that are compulsory etc. Lots of people are telling bosses what to do and
NOT to do all the time !! It's all part of *democracy* and the "rule of
law" - ever heard of them ?


> He can employ and sack who he likes...and I mean LIKES.


** Like buying and selling cattle - right ??

Send one off to the slaughterhouse any time.


> You can't have people in your business you dont like...it doesn't work.


** A boss gets to chose his staff, so he needs to get that right.

His mistakes *should* cost *him* - so that he tries harder next time.


> All the atmosphere of the workplace is affected by it.


** The atmosphere of a small to medium workplace is determined by the
attitude of the boss. Where arbitrary sackings are going on there is a
constant threat hanging over every staff memeber.

The atmosphere of such a workplace is then at rock bottom.




........... Phil

[Happy Larry]

"Stan Pierce" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:hMYze.29297$oJ.27750@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "V©" <nope@naaaa.naaa.naaa> wrote in message
> news:42d046c4$0$54207$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
> (snipped)
>> It is simple if the business has a valid reason then fine they can sack
>> who ever they like otherwise they should pay redundancy or other payments
>> to compensate. If they do those things employers will not have a problem
>> with unfair dismissal.
>
> Strange how this mindset has developed.
> The fact is an employer is the boss, he started the business, HE is the
> business, the business exists because HE used his initiative to take the
> plunge and do something. The employer makes the decisions as to how the
> business will succeed or not and no-one should be telling the employer how
> to run his business. He can employ and sack who he likes...and I mean
> LIKES. You can't have people in your business you dont like...it doesn't
> work. All the atmosphere of the workplace is affected by it.
>
>
>
That is an interesting choice of words, "He can employ and sack who he
likes...and I mean LIKES". It infers that you believe that employers are
entitled to act on discriminatory reasons, unlawful reasons. Like most of
us, employers are subject to discriminatory feelings in accordance with the
conditioning of popular prejudices that we have been exposed to. While it is
not illegal to have personal feelings that are discriminatory; against
Aboriginals, women, the elderly etc; it is illegal to act against people for
those reasons.

Now I am not saying that you intended that meaning with that sentence. You
may have meant that employers have a greater right to allow their personal
feelings to influence the way they interact with people employed at their
place of business. That greater right being subject to the employers
investment of time, money and risk of security.

To some degree I would agree with you on this point. The employer does
normally have a greater investment and greater risk than the employees and
bears greater responsibility to an enterprise that provides for the
financial needs of the employer and all of the employees. That is not to say
that employees have not also made an investment in the enterprise. The
employees invest their time, effort and family security in their place of
work. A good employee will make an effort to be punctual, to show loyalty,
complete tasks in a timely and efficient manner, and behave in a way that is
legally and socially acceptable.

An employer and employee enter a contract of employment that should reflect
the investment made by each. The employer, having the greater investment,
has the right to determine what, how and when tasks are performed by the
employee. The employee, having also invested, has the right to be paid an
amount that reflects the worth of that investment. Both the employer and
employee are deserving of respect.

Both the employer and employee should not have their investment put at risk
unnecessarily by the other. A dislike of an employer should not empower an
employee to harm the investment of the employer. A dislike of an employee is
not a justifiable reason to harm the investment of the employee. The
enterprise will suffer if employees or employers allow their personal
baggage to interfere with business relationships. Most reasonable employers
will respect an employees ability to continue to provide loyal effort when a
employer decision is unpopular. It would be shameful to allow employers
licence to escape that same responsibility. May I suggest that it is not so
much that " HE is the business, the business exists because HE used his
initiative to take the plunge and do something" but that a business that
employs is a partnership.

Regards,
Larry

[David Moss]

In article <3jatk6Fp7a78U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com
writes...

> David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote
>
> > OK, I admit it.
> > The legislation is impenetrable, I can't understand it.
>
> The problem is with your ear to ear dog shit.

Thank you for telling me Rod, I would never have thought of that without
your assistance.

> > I'm told that somewhere in the Trade Practices Act is a section which
> > talks about unfair dismissal and fails to exempt small business.
>
> There isnt, unfair dismissal isnt covered by the TPA, stupid.
>
> There is however a provision relevant to misleading when employing.
>
> > WTF is it?

So you don't know the specifics either?
I see, your dog shit diagnosis was based on personal experience.
Thanks anyway.

--
DM
personal opinion only

[David Moss]

In article <uLPze.29070$oJ.12864@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
dearlarry@msn.com writes...
> "David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
> > I'm told that somewhere in the Trade Practices Act is a section which
> > talks about unfair dismissal and fails to exempt small business.
> > WTF is it?

> Could this be it David?
>
> TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974
> - SECT 53B
> Misleading conduct in relation to employment
>
>
> A corporation shall not, in relation to employment that is to be, or may be,
> offered by the corporation or by another person, engage in conduct that is
> liable to mislead persons seeking the employment as to the availability,
> nature, terms or conditions of, or any other matter relating to, the
> employment.

At last, a reasoned response!
Thank you Larry.

If that is indeed the part Howard seeks to limit, its a poor policy.
The same reasoning could be used to exempt small business from
provisions relating to misleading conduct in other areas, such as
product description.

Either misleading conduct by small business is OK or it is not.


--
DM
personal opinion only

[Heretic]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:31:40 +0000, David Moss wrote:

> In article <uLPze.29070$oJ.12864@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> dearlarry@msn.com writes...
>> "David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
>> > I'm told that somewhere in the Trade Practices Act is a section which
>> > talks about unfair dismissal and fails to exempt small business. WTF
>> > is it?
>
>> Could this be it David?
>>
>> TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974
>> - SECT 53B
>> Misleading conduct in relation to employment
>>
>>
>> A corporation shall not, in relation to employment that is to be, or
>> may be, offered by the corporation or by another person, engage in
>> conduct that is liable to mislead persons seeking the employment as to
>> the availability, nature, terms or conditions of, or any other matter
>> relating to, the employment.
>
> At last, a reasoned response!
> Thank you Larry.
>
> If that is indeed the part Howard seeks to limit, its a poor policy. The
> same reasoning could be used to exempt small business from provisions
> relating to misleading conduct in other areas, such as product
> description.
>
> Either misleading conduct by small business is OK or it is not.

It would you helpful to cite a reference for your claim that there is
some intention to change this provision before attacking that intention.

[Stan Pierce]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3jb9hiFosdptU1@individual.net...
>
> "Stan Pierce"
>>
>> Strange how this mindset has developed.
>
>
> ** Only to the impenetrably thick headed & rabid fascists.

Some advice sonny...never go into business on your own. You are a born failure.

[Phil Allison]

"Stan Pierce"
>
> "Phil Allison"
>>>
>>> Strange how this mindset has developed.
>>
>>
>> ** Only to the impenetrably thick headed & rabid fascists.
>
> Some advice sonny...never go into business on your own. You are a born
> failure.



** I see I hit the mark - Stan is a born, fascist pig.




........... Phil

[Stan Pierce]

"Happy Larry" <dearlarry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:iC_ze.29535$oJ.18235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Stan Pierce" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:hMYze.29297$oJ.27750@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Strange how this mindset has developed.

> That is an interesting choice of words, "He can employ and sack who he
> likes...and I mean LIKES". It infers that you believe that employers are
> entitled to act on discriminatory reasons, unlawful reasons.

You sound like a reasonable man. After reading all of your post I got this
feeling that you have been to college and done this kind of subject as
assignments. This is the way 'education' has gone in the last 50
years...people analysing everything to death and actually creating
administrative nightmares instead of more work.

What you should be doing is looking at society and looking for something
tangible that is missing... or you THINK is needed. This is how productive work
is created for others. Creating artificial disputes within existing businesses
only creates work for lawyers and people who sit on committees. A Professional
Parasite Class that compounds itself through legislation and more Parasitic
Professionals on the productive members of society. You get a society of white
collar whingers...non of them capable of a productive life.
Sadly, university courses seem streamlined along this very path.
Once you go to work for some you should be grown up enough to accept the
conditions of your job...or leave. Simple.

[David Moss]

In article <pan.2005.07.10.01.45.21.470623@Languedoc>,
cathars@montaillou.com.fr writes...

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:31:40 +0000, David Moss wrote:
>
> > In article <uLPze.29070$oJ.12864@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > dearlarry@msn.com writes...
> >> "David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
> >> > I'm told that somewhere in the Trade Practices Act is a section which
> >> > talks about unfair dismissal and fails to exempt small business. WTF
> >> > is it?
> >
> >> Could this be it David?
> >>
> >> TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974
> >> - SECT 53B
> >> Misleading conduct in relation to employment
> >>
> >>
> >> A corporation shall not, in relation to employment that is to be, or
> >> may be, offered by the corporation or by another person, engage in
> >> conduct that is liable to mislead persons seeking the employment as to
> >> the availability, nature, terms or conditions of, or any other matter
> >> relating to, the employment.
> >
> > At last, a reasoned response!
> > Thank you Larry.
> >
> > If that is indeed the part Howard seeks to limit, its a poor policy. The
> > same reasoning could be used to exempt small business from provisions
> > relating to misleading conduct in other areas, such as product
> > description.
> >
> > Either misleading conduct by small business is OK or it is not.
>
> It would you helpful to cite a reference for your claim that there is
> some intention to change this provision before attacking that intention.

It is claimed that Howard intends to amend the Trade Practices Act to
remove the unfair dismissal obligations for small business.

I could not find any reference to unfair dismissal in the TPA.

I am beginning to think I have been misinformed concerning the TPA and
unfair dismissal.

The only references to unfair dismissal I can find at all are in the
Workplace Relations Act1996, specifically
PART VIA--MINIMUM ENTITLEMENTS OF EMPLOYEES

Of course the federal opposition could assist in understanding this
issue by detailing precisely how workers are protected from unfair
dismissal. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that.

--
DM
personal opinion only

[David Moss]

In article <iC_ze.29535$oJ.18235@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
dearlarry@msn.com writes...

> That is an interesting choice of words, "He can employ and sack who he
> likes...and I mean LIKES". It infers that you believe that employers are
> entitled to act on discriminatory reasons, unlawful reasons. Like most of
> us, employers are subject to discriminatory feelings in accordance with the
> conditioning of popular prejudices that we have been exposed to. While it is
> not illegal to have personal feelings that are discriminatory; against
> Aboriginals, women, the elderly etc; it is illegal to act against people for
> those reasons.

I did a course in organisational behaviour last year that sheds some
light on this issue.

It seems that most organisations begin with an entrepreneur and an idea.
The organisational culture is intrinsically linked to the personality of
the founder. This works well in very small organisations where the
founder can personally meet and speak to every employee frequently and
regularly. It results in a simple organisational structure where one
person makes all the decisions.

When an organisation grows this starts to break down. It is no longer
possible for the boss to use personal relationships to control every
aspect of the company. As soon as this happens the organisational
culture starts to diverge from the personality of the founder. This
leads to increasing personality clashes and unfair dismissal of workers.

Typically somewhere between 50 and 100 employees an organisation has to
undergo a transition from a simple structure to one of the more complex
structures. Some seemingly successful businesses fail to make the
transition and fail at this point. Some people find that it all gets too
much for them and sell out, leaving the buyer to restructure the
business. Some people, especially if they are in partnerships or other
financial relationships, find themselves forced out of their own
business at this point. The CEO may find himself playing a lot more golf
while the company magically gets along fine without him.

The interesting thing is that Organisational Behaviour predicts this
point will occur somewhere between 50 and 100 employees, but the federal
government proposes to draw the unfair dismissal exemption line at 100
employees, not 50. Almost all smaller businesses will therefore run the
risk of inappropriate management by force of personality and become more
vulnerable to failure.

If a line is to be drawn using the available scientific evidence, it
should exempt businesses with less than 50 employees, not take in the
dangerous 50-100 employee range.

--
DM
personal opinion only

[Happy Larry]

"Stan Pierce" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:Is%ze.31025$oJ.20305@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Happy Larry" <dearlarry@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:iC_ze.29535$oJ.18235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Stan Pierce" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:hMYze.29297$oJ.27750@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Strange how this mindset has developed.
>
>> That is an interesting choice of words, "He can employ and sack who he
>> likes...and I mean LIKES". It infers that you believe that employers are
>> entitled to act on discriminatory reasons, unlawful reasons.
>
> You sound like a reasonable man. After reading all of your post I got
> this feeling that you have been to college and done this kind of subject
> as assignments. This is the way 'education' has gone in the last 50
> years...people analysing everything to death and actually creating
> administrative nightmares instead of more work.
>

I am pleased that you accept that my argument is reasonable and well
analysed. You may have noticed that I made an effort not to criticise you
for having a point of view contrary to my own, or for any imagined level of
education. I don't have a university degree, but thanks anyway.

> What you should be doing is looking at society and looking for something
> tangible that is missing... or you THINK is needed.

That is what I was doing. While interacting with a part of society I noticed
your argument had tangible insufficiencies and practiced my equal right to
free speech in order to rectify the imbalance.

This is how productive work
> is created for others. Creating artificial disputes within existing
> businesses only creates work for lawyers and people who sit on committees.
> A Professional Parasite Class that compounds itself through legislation
> and more Parasitic Professionals on the productive members of society.

"Artificial disputes"? Surely a dispute is real unless, of course, one or
more of the parties is bluffing for some reason.

You get a society of white
> collar whingers...non of them capable of a productive life.
> Sadly, university courses seem streamlined along this very path.
> Once you go to work for some you should be grown up enough to accept the
> conditions of your job...or leave. Simple.
>
I worked in the agricultural earthmoving industry for ten years. I worked
seven days a week, 12 to 16 hours (or more) a shift, often in remote areas
and I made good money. I negotiated my own conditions based on my
reputation, and myself or my employer could end our contract as we saw fit.
I did not have to deal with any bureaucracy and I enjoyed my work.

When I got married and took on family responsibilities I quit that
employment and took a lower paid job that offered the securities of
permanency, sick-pay, annual leave, long service leave, family care leave
and allowed me to be home most nights and weekends. I lost a lot of
independence, pay and prestige but I gained other conditions that had become
more important to me. If Johnny changes the rules now, my employer will be
able to withdraw some of those conditions but a mortgage and family
responsibilities will make it difficult for me to return to the earthmoving
long enough to regain my reputation and earning capacity. I'm not a white
collar worker, a whinger or a university graduate. I have been working for
over twenty years. I accept the conditions of my job. If those conditions
change it will not be a simple process to accept it or leave.

Regards,
Larry

[Stan Pierce]

"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d3b338ea1389fab9896e2@news.bigpond.com.. .
> In article <iC_ze.29535$oJ.18235@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> dearlarry@msn.com writes...
>
>> That is an interesting choice of words, "He can employ and sack who he
>> likes...and I mean LIKES". It infers that you believe that employers are
>> entitled to act on discriminatory reasons, unlawful reasons. Like most of
>> us, employers are subject to discriminatory feelings in accordance with the
>> conditioning of popular prejudices that we have been exposed to. While it is
>> not illegal to have personal feelings that are discriminatory; against
>> Aboriginals, women, the elderly etc; it is illegal to act against people for
>> those reasons.
>
> I did a course in organisational behaviour last year that sheds some
> light on this issue.
>
> It seems that most organisations begin with an entrepreneur and an idea.
> The organisational culture is intrinsically linked to the personality of
> the founder. This works well in very small organisations where the
> founder can personally meet and speak to every employee frequently and
> regularly. It results in a simple organisational structure where one
> person makes all the decisions.
>
> When an organisation grows this starts to break down. It is no longer
> possible for the boss to use personal relationships to control every
> aspect of the company. As soon as this happens the organisational
> culture starts to diverge from the personality of the founder. This
> leads to increasing personality clashes and unfair dismissal of workers.
>
> Typically somewhere between 50 and 100 employees an organisation has to
> undergo a transition from a simple structure to one of the more complex
> structures. Some seemingly successful businesses fail to make the
> transition and fail at this point. Some people find that it all gets too
> much for them and sell out, leaving the buyer to restructure the
> business. Some people, especially if they are in partnerships or other
> financial relationships, find themselves forced out of their own
> business at this point. The CEO may find himself playing a lot more golf
> while the company magically gets along fine without him.
>
> The interesting thing is that Organisational Behaviour predicts this
> point will occur somewhere between 50 and 100 employees, but the federal
> government proposes to draw the unfair dismissal exemption line at 100
> employees, not 50. Almost all smaller businesses will therefore run the
> risk of inappropriate management by force of personality and become more
> vulnerable to failure.
>
> If a line is to be drawn using the available scientific evidence, it
> should exempt businesses with less than 50 employees, not take in the
> dangerous 50-100 employee range.
> DM

And I suppose your Organisational Behaviour course showed you how to actually
SOLVE any problems. Did you have to pay someone for that course. Did you
subsequently actually solve anything because of the course.

The point I'm making is: * any * business works from day to day in a manner of
controlled crisis. Nothing goes right, whether it's got one employee or 51.
Business works on Murphy's Law...if anything is possible to go wrong, it will.
You have to have people around you that you can depend on to do the right thing
under duress...which is most of the time. So you need people you like.
One whinger upsets the whole works and people get distracted. You just can't
have people around who's personality or behaviour makes you feel anxious.
Sometimes you only find the worth...or lack of worth of someone when things go
wrong, and you HAVE to get rid of that runt in the litter.
Putting legal restraints on bosses to hire and fire is defeating the
businesses. It's obvious to anyone who's ever been in that position. It's easy
to see the ones that haven't