Job loss a big blow

SARAH CODDINGTON

A 90-DAY trial left a man out of a job he had been in for almost two years.

The man, who does not want to be named, was fired from his managing role at a Mairangi Bay cafe when it was taken over by new management.

Pickles delicatessen and cafe owner John Bensch made employees re-apply for their positions when he took over in April. The man was sacked a few weeks later, right before his partner was due with their second child.

Some other employees also lost their job at the time, Mr Bensch says.

The man says Mr Bensch sent him an email giving him a week's notice and explaining he had been let off for "unsatisfactory performance" under the 90-day trial period.

Mr Bensch says he can not comment on the case without written authorisation from the employee.

"It was humiliating to be treated in that way," the man says.

Labour Department workplace relationships adviser Craig Smith says it is not the department's practice to comment on the details of an individual case.

"This case is complex and raises many issues about the exact nature of the relationship between employer and employee and the detail of the employment contract," he says.

Mr Smith advises independent legal advice should be taken.

The man is still seeking employment so he can care for his newborn child and three-year-old.

"I worked hard to get this position and there is nothing really out there," the man says.

The 90-day trial period was introduced in March last year and applies to companies who employ 19 or fewer staff.

The government is to extend the legislation to cover all companies.

Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson says the trial period has been beneficial for both employers and employees.

At least 74 percent of people employed on a trial have maintained their employment, she says.

In one high-profile case, Hutt Valley resident Heather Smith who worked at a pharmacy for almost three years also had to re-apply for her job and was sacked a few weeks later.

Her case ended up in the Employment Court which ruled the employer had not complied with contractual requirements relating to the trial period. The court said there were grounds for personal grievance.

- © Fairfax NZ News