Meaning of 'reasonable' in a workplace agreement

[Ext User(Ted)]

My son's colleagues are being asked to sign a new workplace agreement.
Bargaining takes the form of management pushing a 60 page document
under their noses and telling them to sign it. Requests for
clarification and changes are met with the exasperated comment that
the firm spent thousands of dollars getting the 'agreement' drawn up
and they do not propose to tinker with it. Some bargaining.

One particularly vague phrase states that they will work at weekends
provided reasonable notice is given. The word reasonable also crops up
in a rider that states that compensatory time off will be given in
lieu within a reasonable time after the weekend worked..

My son tells me that requests to define reasonable are falling on deaf
ears.

Does reasonable have any meaning in law? Can it be interpreted as
referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
connotations of fairness? Is such unquantified vagueness common in
workplace agreements?

[Ext User(Peter)]

Ted wrote:

> Does reasonable have any meaning in law? Can it be interpreted as
> referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
> connotations of fairness? Is such unquantified vagueness common in
> workplace agreements?

There is the concept of the 'reasonable man' (in the days before gender
equality) who is alleged to ride on the Clapham omnibus. A judge would ask
'what would a reasonable person in the shoes of X' do or think in such a
case. 'reasonable' in a contract could be defined as how would a
reasonable person interpret it. For example it could be unreasonable for
an employee to seek time off in lieu when everyone is busting their guts to
get a big valuable order out of the door. Similarly it would be
unreasonable for an employer not to allow time in lieu until a year has
passed.

An employer just cannot foist a new contract on to staff. The employer
needs to provide 'consideration' eg lump sum payment or extra pay
acceptable to the employees. If employees sign the contract out of fear
for their jobs without any payment reflecting harsher conditions the
contract seeks to impose then the contract is voidable.

I know it is harsh to say this, but if an employee has transferable skills
and there are suitable vacancies occurring, then the employee should look
for another job. An older employee or one without transferable skills
could be well advised just to accept it.

[Ext User(Phil Allison)]

"Ted"
>
> One particularly vague phrase states that they will work at weekends
> provided reasonable notice is given. The word reasonable also crops up
> in a rider that states that compensatory time off will be given in
> lieu within a reasonable time after the weekend worked..
>
> My son tells me that requests to define reasonable are falling on deaf
> ears.


** It simply cannot be defined by simple rules or by prescription.


> Does reasonable have any meaning in law?


** Of course, but it is a matter of judgement in each set of circumstances.

Try translating it to "not unreasonable" - then imagine that the
management has to show that this IS the case in an objective way.


> Can it be interpreted as
> referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
> connotations of fairness?


** Whatever can be established objectively as " not unreasonable",
considering all the circumstances of the matter and of the parties.


> Is such unquantified vagueness common in workplace agreements?


** It is very common in agreements.

Have a look at a Residential Tenancy Agreement.


However, it is very **reasonable* for employees to ask that minimum periods
of such notice be set down and that maximum delay periods prior to time off
in lieu be established.




......... Phil

[Ext User(Seppo Renfors)]

Ted wrote:
>
> My son's colleagues are being asked to sign a new workplace agreement.
> Bargaining takes the form of management pushing a 60 page document
> under their noses and telling them to sign it. Requests for
> clarification and changes are met with the exasperated comment that
> the firm spent thousands of dollars getting the 'agreement' drawn up
> and they do not propose to tinker with it. Some bargaining.

They have the option to stick with the award.

> One particularly vague phrase states that they will work at weekends
> provided reasonable notice is given. The word reasonable also crops up
> in a rider that states that compensatory time off will be given in
> lieu within a reasonable time after the weekend worked..
>
> My son tells me that requests to define reasonable are falling on deaf
> ears.
>
> Does reasonable have any meaning in law?

Yes - it means that which is "reasonable" - and what that is is a
question of fact, something a Judge will find for any given
circumstance.

> Can it be interpreted as
> referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
> connotations of fairness?

In the context you describe, it refer to time. As for your question on
"fairness" - isn't that another term equally as well defined as
"reasonable", that you are having problems with?

> Is such unquantified vagueness common in
> workplace agreements?

It is common in Law as a whole. If you view the law as a thin "Line"
beyond which something is unlawful, you misunderstand it. It is more
like a broad avenue where something may become unlawful as soon as you
step on it for a particular set of circumstances - but only when you
have crossed it and are about to step into the footpath on the other
side, for a different set of circumstances - or at any point
in-between, depending on the circumstances.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Ext User(savgoose)]

what if u say " nah i like the old contract im working under " and dont
sign, i guess u get fired?

[Ext User(Alan Rutlidge)]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3n80afF9juiU1@individual.net...
>

>
> Have a look at a Residential Tenancy Agreement.

And of course you're a expert at that from a tenant's point of view. You
still haven't explained how you came to leave the Lackey St flat in what
might be described as "under a cloud" ????????

[Ext User(Bernardz)]

In article <vggtg1pbsqvsqdp37uglh9a42go7hobi51@4ax.com>,
edward@noaddress.com says...
> My son's colleagues are being asked to sign a new workplace agreement.
> Bargaining takes the form of management pushing a 60 page document
> under their noses and telling them to sign it. Requests for
> clarification and changes are met with the exasperated comment that
> the firm spent thousands of dollars getting the 'agreement' drawn up
> and they do not propose to tinker with it. Some bargaining.
>
> One particularly vague phrase states that they will work at weekends
> provided reasonable notice is given. The word reasonable also crops up
> in a rider that states that compensatory time off will be given in
> lieu within a reasonable time after the weekend worked..
>
> My son tells me that requests to define reasonable are falling on deaf
> ears.
>
> Does reasonable have any meaning in law? Can it be interpreted as
> referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
> connotations of fairness? Is such unquantified vagueness common in
> workplace agreements?
>
>
>

In the final analysis where our courts look for guidance in political
correctness, I doubt that these contracts would be much of a problem to
your son's colleague if he signed them.


--
Ask yourself, what would God think of your ideals, religion and beliefs?

Observations of Bernard - No 83

[Ext User(Strabo)]

In Re: Meaning of 'reasonable' in a workplace agreement on Fri,
26 Aug 2005 19:53:09 +1200, by Peter, we read:

>Ted wrote:
>
>> Does reasonable have any meaning in law? Can it be interpreted as
>> referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
>> connotations of fairness? Is such unquantified vagueness common in
>> workplace agreements?
>
>There is the concept of the 'reasonable man' (in the days before gender
>equality) who is alleged to ride on the Clapham omnibus. A judge would ask
>'what would a reasonable person in the shoes of X' do or think in such a
>case. 'reasonable' in a contract could be defined as how would a
>reasonable person interpret it. For example it could be unreasonable for
>an employee to seek time off in lieu when everyone is busting their guts to
>get a big valuable order out of the door. Similarly it would be
>unreasonable for an employer not to allow time in lieu until a year has
>passed.
>
>An employer just cannot foist a new contract on to staff. The employer
>needs to provide 'consideration' eg lump sum payment or extra pay
>acceptable to the employees. If employees sign the contract out of fear
>for their jobs without any payment reflecting harsher conditions the
>contract seeks to impose then the contract is voidable.
>
>I know it is harsh to say this, but if an employee has transferable skills
>and there are suitable vacancies occurring, then the employee should look
>for another job. An older employee or one without transferable skills
>could be well advised just to accept it.

These are two disperate uses of "reasonable."

The common law jury determination by reasonable men is a
different application from the specifics required in an
agreement or contract. This is because there is no jury
to judge the reasonableness of each notification by the
employer. A contract must be specific in all instances.

It seems to me that no contract that used the word "reasonable"
as a condition of a party's obligation would hold up in court.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Ext User(Seppo Renfors)]

Strabo wrote:
>
> In Re: Meaning of 'reasonable' in a workplace agreement on Fri,
> 26 Aug 2005 19:53:09 +1200, by Peter, we read:
>
> >Ted wrote:
> >
> >> Does reasonable have any meaning in law? Can it be interpreted as
> >> referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
> >> connotations of fairness? Is such unquantified vagueness common in
> >> workplace agreements?
> >
> >There is the concept of the 'reasonable man' (in the days before gender
> >equality) who is alleged to ride on the Clapham omnibus. A judge would ask
> >'what would a reasonable person in the shoes of X' do or think in such a
> >case. 'reasonable' in a contract could be defined as how would a
> >reasonable person interpret it. For example it could be unreasonable for
> >an employee to seek time off in lieu when everyone is busting their guts to
> >get a big valuable order out of the door. Similarly it would be
> >unreasonable for an employer not to allow time in lieu until a year has
> >passed.
> >
> >An employer just cannot foist a new contract on to staff. The employer
> >needs to provide 'consideration' eg lump sum payment or extra pay
> >acceptable to the employees. If employees sign the contract out of fear
> >for their jobs without any payment reflecting harsher conditions the
> >contract seeks to impose then the contract is voidable.
> >
> >I know it is harsh to say this, but if an employee has transferable skills
> >and there are suitable vacancies occurring, then the employee should look
> >for another job. An older employee or one without transferable skills
> >could be well advised just to accept it.
>
> These are two disperate uses of "reasonable."
>
> The common law jury determination by reasonable men is a
> different application from the specifics required in an
> agreement or contract. This is because there is no jury
> to judge the reasonableness of each notification by the
> employer. A contract must be specific in all instances.

Not so. A judge alone rules on Common Law issues more often than a
Jury does as it includes civil cases rarely brought before a jury.

> It seems to me that no contract that used the word "reasonable"
> as a condition of a party's obligation would hold up in court.


So much is true.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Ext User(Heretic)]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:41:20 +0000, Seppo Renfors wrote:

>
>
> Strabo wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that no contract that used the word "reasonable"
>> as a condition of a party's obligation would hold up in court.
>
>
> So much is true.

It's just not worth the effort...

[Ext User(Ted)]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:32:16 +1000, Ted <edward@noaddress.com> wrote:

>My son's colleagues are being asked to sign a new workplace agreement.
>Bargaining takes the form of management pushing a 60 page document
>under their noses and telling them to sign it. Requests for
>clarification and changes are met with the exasperated comment that
>the firm spent thousands of dollars getting the 'agreement' drawn up
>and they do not propose to tinker with it. Some bargaining.
>
>One particularly vague phrase states that they will work at weekends
>provided reasonable notice is given. The word reasonable also crops up
>in a rider that states that compensatory time off will be given in
>lieu within a reasonable time after the weekend worked..
>
>My son tells me that requests to define reasonable are falling on deaf
>ears.
>
>Does reasonable have any meaning in law? Can it be interpreted as
>referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
>connotations of fairness? Is such unquantified vagueness common in
>workplace agreements?
>

One more thing has come to light.

There are two apparently conflicitng clauses in the proposed
agreement.

A preamble states that no worker will be worse off under the proposed
agreement..

However the existing arrangements are for a regular wage and various
clauses about overtime, etc..

The proposed agreement, by contrast, states that if there is not
enough work to go around for the week then the workers will be paid an
hourly rate for any work actually done - then go home (or words to
that effect).

My son's view is that both clauses can't stand in the same contract,
since the existing arrangements guarantee a regular wage - for so long
as the person continues to be employed, of course.

What's the legal situation here?

[Ext User(Seppo Renfors)]

Ted wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:32:16 +1000, Ted <edward@noaddress.com> wrote:
>
> >My son's colleagues are being asked to sign a new workplace agreement.
> >Bargaining takes the form of management pushing a 60 page document
> >under their noses and telling them to sign it. Requests for
> >clarification and changes are met with the exasperated comment that
> >the firm spent thousands of dollars getting the 'agreement' drawn up
> >and they do not propose to tinker with it. Some bargaining.
> >
> >One particularly vague phrase states that they will work at weekends
> >provided reasonable notice is given. The word reasonable also crops up
> >in a rider that states that compensatory time off will be given in
> >lieu within a reasonable time after the weekend worked..
> >
> >My son tells me that requests to define reasonable are falling on deaf
> >ears.
> >
> >Does reasonable have any meaning in law? Can it be interpreted as
> >referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
> >connotations of fairness? Is such unquantified vagueness common in
> >workplace agreements?
> >
>
> One more thing has come to light.
>
> There are two apparently conflicitng clauses in the proposed
> agreement.
>
> A preamble states that no worker will be worse off under the proposed
> agreement..

Indeed - a requirement for AWA's and it has to be actual not only lip
service.

> However the existing arrangements are for a regular wage and various
> clauses about overtime, etc..
>
> The proposed agreement, by contrast, states that if there is not
> enough work to go around for the week then the workers will be paid an
> hourly rate for any work actually done - then go home (or words to
> that effect).

I don't see this as being "conflicting" - it is already available
under awards. Note that the hourly rates, that are presumably above
award rates still apply and is consistent with the "no worker will be
worse off" statement.

It has always been possible to place people on 'short hours' if the
work isn't there - eg resort to a 4 day week. This preserves jobs as
the alternative is to dismiss some workers to maintain full employment
for the remainder.

> My son's view is that both clauses can't stand in the same contract,
> since the existing arrangements guarantee a regular wage - for so long
> as the person continues to be employed, of course.

The new arrangements provide for exactly the same thing!!

> What's the legal situation here?

Same as previously! Notwithstanding that such may not have been
expressly mentioned in the previous AWA, it was most likely still
possible to implement that arrangement. Employers tend to not be too
hasty implementing such schemes as they run the risk of their best
employees leaving for other jobs. In the past they have been reserved
for the worst case scenario and the presumed intent is to preserve
jobs.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Ext User(V©)]

Reasonable generally equates to what the employer wants end of story. Why
not simply have your son ask if he can have the contract rewritten with
exact time frames mentioned. Instead of "reasonable notice" maybe the
employer could specify a "minimum of one week" and/or in relation to payment
a similar thing specified "no longer than one week" or "within the next pay
period".

Simply saying "Reasonable" leaves the contract wide open for abuse as there
is no clear cut time as to what is reasonable and what is not. The employer
could tell your son to work a weekend on Friday morning and then pay them
for that weekend months and months away.

The word reasonable should be set in a specific time frame.

Having no notice of being told to work weekends may not generally be a
problem. However it coudl sometimes cost money as your son might have
purchased tickets to an event they had planned for the weekend or what ever.
Hence the need for reasonable notice. What is classed as reasonable is
something you should ask to be clarified within the contract.

and yes such vagueness is common. Employers will try to keep this type of
thing vague as it generally works to their advantage and not to the
employee's advantage.



"Ted" <edward@noaddress.com> wrote in message
news:vggtg1pbsqvsqdp37uglh9a42go7hobi51@4ax.com...
> My son's colleagues are being asked to sign a new workplace agreement.
> Bargaining takes the form of management pushing a 60 page document
> under their noses and telling them to sign it. Requests for
> clarification and changes are met with the exasperated comment that
> the firm spent thousands of dollars getting the 'agreement' drawn up
> and they do not propose to tinker with it. Some bargaining.
>
> One particularly vague phrase states that they will work at weekends
> provided reasonable notice is given. The word reasonable also crops up
> in a rider that states that compensatory time off will be given in
> lieu within a reasonable time after the weekend worked..
>
> My son tells me that requests to define reasonable are falling on deaf
> ears.
>
> Does reasonable have any meaning in law? Can it be interpreted as
> referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
> connotations of fairness? Is such unquantified vagueness common in
> workplace agreements?
>
>

[Ext User(Brissie)]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:32:16 +1000, Ted <edward@noaddress.com> wrote:

>My son's colleagues are being asked to sign a new workplace agreement.
>Bargaining takes the form of management pushing a 60 page document
>under their noses and telling them to sign it. Requests for
>clarification and changes are met with the exasperated comment that
>the firm spent thousands of dollars getting the 'agreement' drawn up
>and they do not propose to tinker with it. Some bargaining.
>
>One particularly vague phrase states that they will work at weekends
>provided reasonable notice is given. The word reasonable also crops up
>in a rider that states that compensatory time off will be given in
>lieu within a reasonable time after the weekend worked..
>
>My son tells me that requests to define reasonable are falling on deaf
>ears.
>
>Does reasonable have any meaning in law? Can it be interpreted as
>referring only to the lapse of time, or does it have additional
>connotations of fairness? Is such unquantified vagueness common in
>workplace agreements?

Reasonable generally means 12 hours notice

[Ext User(Phil Allison)]

"Brissie"

> Reasonable generally means 12 hours notice


** Complete bullshit.




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

[Ext User(Brissie)]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:25:30 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

>
>"Brissie"
>
>> Reasonable generally means 12 hours notice
>
>
>** Complete bullshit.

Nope. I know people who work at places where the bosses define
'reasonable notice' as 12 hours

[Ext User(Phil Allison)]

"Brissie"
"Phil Allison"
>>
>>> Reasonable generally means 12 hours notice
>>
>>
>>** Complete bullshit.
>
> Nope. I know people who work at places where the bosses define
> 'reasonable notice' as 12 hours


** So fucking what ?

What you pretend to know about has no impact in what is legally " reasonable
" in other cases.


BTW

Only psychotics refuse to put full stops on the end of their sentences.



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