Protecting your entitlements Part 1: We stop Wingecarribee removing a "condition of employment" car from a member

Maybe people were tired and emotional or it could have been the time of year but it seems we will never know. Someone at Wingecarribee Shire thought it made good sense to give 12 months notice to remove a leaseback car from a member just before the end of the year but when we wrote to challenge the decision those responsible scurried for cover like cockroaches under the fridge when the kitchen light goes on.

One of the great improvements in the 2010 Local Government (State) Award was a provision that if an employee had a leaseback car as a condition of their employment, then they had it forever or until such time as they chose to hand it back. This replaced the standard 12 months notice provision for everyone and separated cars into conditions of employment cars and cars provided for other purposes.

Clause 15 of the State Award provides this protection and even provides examples to assist management work out what all this means - specifically, if the car was offered "as an incentive to attract and/or retain the employee" and "the period the employee has access to the vehicle”. This new clause means that virtually all of our members will have cars as a condition of employment and the longer you have a car, the more entrenched that entitlement becomes.

But someone thought that if they told the member that he didn't have the car as a condition of employment then he could be bluffed and would accept the 12 months notice.

Employees are entitled to expect that they won't be misled or bluffed at a meeting with HR and management of their own Division and told that they don't have it as a condition - particularly when in this case:

  • A "Private Lease Back Vehicle" was identified in the ad for the position as something that the Council would "provide you with" if successful.
     
  • The letter of offer required the employee to sign a document acknowledging "you have read and accept these conditions of employment" and one of the attachments was the Vehicle Policy Agreement. He did.
     
  • He was also asked to sign a document headed AGREED TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT and establishing that the vehicle would be provided and he signed that too.
     
  • The subsequent leaseback agreement made after he commenced employment made reference to his entitlement.
     
  • The entitlement was supported by aspects of the General Manager’s Internal Practice Note on the process to be followed to remove the car and this process had not been followed.
     
  • There was also reference in the Practice Note that "Council recognises that its Private Use Car Scheme constitutes one essential element of its salary and remuneration structures and reflects a general policy which is designed to attract and effectively recruit and maintain the best available personnel…"

But despite all this, apparently HR and management within the Division believe the employee did not have it as a condition of employment. They now recognise that he does. Life is a learning curve at Wingecarribee.

This would have been the first Council to test whether an employee did have a car as a condition of employment. Clearly a wiser head than those involved originally in the attempt to bluff the member has prevailed.

Learn from this. Even though there is strong protection in the Award, sometimes people will try to bluff you. Always seek advice before you agree to anything.

Robbo's Pearls...

 

Go to jail Meredith!

The High Court on Thursday 3 May hammered the final damning nails into the disgraced corporate reputations of seven James Hardie Board members. The Court unanimously held that the seven non-executive directors had breached their duty to act with care and diligence by approving the release of a statement to the stock exchange in 2001 which misled the market about the company's funding of its workers’ compensation liability. The Court overturned a decision of the NSW Court of Appeal which had let the disgraced directors off the hook.

These people are all corporate bluebloods, previously respected by business, government and the market. They are now disgraced and, trying to cut a complicated story short, the Court also referred back to the NSW Court of Appeal the consideration of penalties including disqualification. The High Court makes it abundantly clear that the Board knew the foundation was underfunded and had specifically developed a strategy to restrict news to the finance pages and their narrow sectional interests rather than provide it generally as  news.

James Hardie has killed more Australian workers than most. While Australian workers will continue to die for decades from contact with their products, the damage is not just restricted to anyone employed by them but they've also killed kids, wives, family and friends who came in contact with the dangerous asbestos fibres - fibres  known to be dangerous when mined in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.

Companies manufacturing asbestos sheeting in our lifetime preferred to employ older workers. They believe this managed their financial liability because mesothelioma symptoms take a long time to appear and if they employed older blokes they are more likely to have retired and die before the asbestos gets them.

It is now up to the NSW Court of Appeal to review punishments. Not being able to operate as a company director again is the least of it and the original fines of $35,000 each for these seven should have a series of zeros added.

More is the pity that these are not criminal offences and this lot of miscreants won't end up in jail. It is  a pity too that we still don't use the stocks because it would be fitting for the seven executives, and especially ex Chairman (sic) of the Board Hellicar, to spend a few weeks in the stocks in Martin Place so that we can all tell them what we think.

While the High Court has nailed these people for endorsing a misleading media release about the underfunding of their liability, there are many implicated in the approval of the NSW Government for Hardy to restructure and move its centre to the Netherlands as part of a process of trying to quarantine their asbestos liability.

Amongst other things, 80 blueblood respectable people of wealth, privilege and reputation provided character statements in support of Hellicar when first prosecuted. I'm going to publish who those people are.

As the Chair of the Investment Committee of LGS I attended the annual conference of the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors in Melbourne in 2004. The guilty Hellicar participated in a panel about corporate behaviour. She was politely asked a question about the recently announced NSW Government investigation of the underfunding of their liability and she told a packed hall of institutional investors that the company had done nothing wrong and that all would be proven. We suspected it was a lie then and we know it is a lie now and I will always regret I didn't boo and heckle this disgraceful performance.

But no one else did anything either. Institutional investors in Melbourne are all very polite and wouldn’t want to frighten the companies Australian superannuation funds invest in. Even those killing Australians, deliberately underfunding their liability for compensation and misleading the market and everyone else about it. 

Maybe it's time to do some frightening.

On 13 October 2010 lawyers acting for Wagga Wagga builder Peter Hurst advised the Council that he would apologise to council staff for his discredited allegations.  He then changed his mind without explanation and we have been waiting 588 days for the apology.

View the full article in depaNews November 2010: Developer agrees to apologise in long-running Wagga Wagga unpleasantness

 

Copyright © 2012 The Development and Environmental Professionals' Association (depa). All Rights Reserved. Webdesign: Dot Online