If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is sacked,
could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked instead
because Person A has been at the organisation longer?

Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?

On 16-July-22 5:09 pm, Max wrote:
> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is sacked,
> could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked instead
> because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>
> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?

No.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is sacked,
> could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked instead
> because Person A has been at the organisation longer?

Nope, because there is no legal requirement that the more
recently employed individual should be sacked first.

The employer is free to sack the least useful individual first.

> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?

Nope.

On 16/07/2022 6:59 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16-July-22 5:09 pm, Max wrote:
>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is sacked,
>> could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked instead
>> because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>>
>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>
> No.

If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the more
experienced employee, how could that be fair?

On 16/07/2022 7:26 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is sacked,
>> could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked instead
>> because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>
> Nope, because there is no legal requirement that the more
> recently employed individual should be sacked first.
>
> The employer is free to sack the least useful individual first.
>
>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>
> Nope.

If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the more
experienced employee, how could that be fair?

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Sylvia Else wrote
>> Max wrote

>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is sacked,
>>> could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked instead
>>> because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>>>
>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>> No.
>
> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the more
> experienced employee, how could that be fair?

It isn't about fair. It can make sense to do that if they are paid more.

Happens all the time in the fast food industry because new kids are
cheaper.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 19:49:39 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 16/07/2022 7:26 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>
>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is sacked,
>>> could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked instead
>>> because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>> Nope, because there is no legal requirement that the more
>> recently employed individual should be sacked first.
>> The employer is free to sack the least useful individual first.
>>
>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>> Nope.
>
> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the more
> experienced employee, how could that be fair?

See my other post.

On 16/07/2022 7:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>> Max wrote
>
>>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is
>>>> sacked, could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked
>>>> instead because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>>>>
>>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>>>  No.
>>
>> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the
>> more experienced employee, how could that be fair?
>
> It isn't about fair. It can make sense to do that if they are paid more.
>
> Happens all the time in the fast food industry because new kids are
> cheaper.

I mean if all other things are equal.

If both employees are paid equal and there are no promotions forthcoming
to either employee, then if the more experienced employee is dismissed,
that would be unfair.

On 16-July-22 8:36 pm, Max wrote:
> On 16/07/2022 7:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>> Max wrote
>>
>>>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is
>>>>> sacked, could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked
>>>>> instead because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>>>>  No.
>>>
>>> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the
>>> more experienced employee, how could that be fair?
>>
>> It isn't about fair. It can make sense to do that if they are paid more.
>>
>> Happens all the time in the fast food industry because new kids are
>> cheaper.
>
> I mean if all other things are equal.
>
> If both employees are paid equal and there are no promotions forthcoming
> to either employee, then if the more experienced employee is dismissed,
> that would be unfair.

The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
legislation.

<www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>

Sylvia.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>> Max wrote

>>>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is
>>>>> sacked, could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked
>>>>> instead because Person A has been at the organisation longer?

>>>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?

>>>> No.

>>> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the
>>> more experienced employee, how could that be fair?

>> It isn't about fair. It can make sense to do that if they are paid
>> more.

>> Happens all the time in the fast food industry because new kids are
>> cheaper.

> I mean if all other things are equal.

They never are. There are far too many variables for that.

The other obvious variables are how pleasant their personality is,
how reliable they are, whether they are a union nit picker etc etc etc.

> If both employees are paid equal and there are no promotions forthcoming
> to either employee, then if the more experienced employee is dismissed,
> that would be unfair.

Wrong if they are more useful to the employer or just more pleasant to be
around etc.

Sylvia Else wrote:
==============
>
> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
> legislation.
>
> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
>

** What if any is the mechanism for redress if you are unfairly dismissed ?
Can you get your job back or maybe compensation ?
Once was easy enough to do, but IIRC John Howard stymied it.
Googling the topic was unfruitful.

....... Phil

On 16/07/2022 11:48 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16-July-22 8:36 pm, Max wrote:
>> On 16/07/2022 7:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>>>
>>>>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is
>>>>>> sacked, could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked
>>>>>> instead because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>>>>>  No.
>>>>
>>>> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the
>>>> more experienced employee, how could that be fair?
>>>
>>> It isn't about fair. It can make sense to do that if they are paid more.
>>>
>>> Happens all the time in the fast food industry because new kids are
>>> cheaper.
>>
>> I mean if all other things are equal.
>>
>> If both employees are paid equal and there are no promotions
>> forthcoming to either employee, then if the more experienced employee
>> is dismissed, that would be unfair.
>
> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
> legislation.
>
> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
>

The words in that section are "harsh, unjust or unreasonable".

If a person is sacked instead of someone with less experience, then I
would say that it equates to the words above.

On 17/07/2022 8:52 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> ==============
>>
>> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
>> legislation.
>>
>> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
>>
>
> ** What if any is the mechanism for redress if you are unfairly dismissed ?
> Can you get your job back or maybe compensation ?

Often it would be compensation. Maybe 6-12 months of salary.

> Once was easy enough to do, but IIRC John Howard stymied it.
> Googling the topic was unfruitful.
>
>
>
> ...... Phil

On 17/07/2022 4:06 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is
>>>>>> sacked, could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked
>>>>>> instead because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>
>>>>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>
>>>>>  No.
>
>>>> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the
>>>> more experienced employee, how could that be fair?
>
>>>  It isn't about fair. It can make sense to do that if they are paid
>>> more.
>
>>>  Happens all the time in the fast food industry because new kids are
>>> cheaper.
>
>> I mean if all other things are equal.
>
> They never are. There are far too many variables for that.
>
> The other obvious variables are how pleasant their personality is,
> how reliable they are, whether they are a union nit picker etc etc etc.
>
>> If both employees are paid equal and there are no promotions
>> forthcoming to either employee, then if the more experienced employee
>> is dismissed, that would be unfair.
>
> Wrong if they are more useful to the employer or just more pleasant to
> be around etc.

If they were not pleasant to be around, why weren't they sacked before then?

It is not just or reasonable for an employer to sack a more experienced
person, just because they might like the other person a bit more, when
this does not affect the person's effectiveness in the job.

Clearly they must be effective otherwise they would have been sacked and
wouldn't have kept the job for so long.

On 17-July-22 11:22 am, Max wrote:
> On 16/07/2022 11:48 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16-July-22 8:36 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 16/07/2022 7:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is
>>>>>>> sacked, could Person A claim that Person B should have been
>>>>>>> sacked instead because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>>>>>>  No.
>>>>>
>>>>> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the
>>>>> more experienced employee, how could that be fair?
>>>>
>>>> It isn't about fair. It can make sense to do that if they are paid
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> Happens all the time in the fast food industry because new kids are
>>>> cheaper.
>>>
>>> I mean if all other things are equal.
>>>
>>> If both employees are paid equal and there are no promotions
>>> forthcoming to either employee, then if the more experienced employee
>>> is dismissed, that would be unfair.
>>
>> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
>> legislation.
>>
>> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
>>
>
> The words in that section are "harsh, unjust or unreasonable".
>
> If a person is sacked instead of someone with less experience, then I
> would say that it equates to the words above.

Section 386 then discusses what constitutes harsh, etc.

Sylvia.

Max the brain dead TRoll wrote:

=====================
>>
> >> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
> >> legislation.
> >>
> >> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
> >>
> >
> > ** What if any is the mechanism for redress if you are unfairly dismissed ?
> > Can you get your job back or maybe compensation ?
>
> Often it would be compensation. Maybe 6-12 months of salary.
>

** Fuck off - wog LIAR.

FYI "mechanism" = what court or tribunal adjudicates the issue.

...... Phil

On 17-July-22 8:52 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> ==============
>>
>> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
>> legislation.
>>
>> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
>>
>
> ** What if any is the mechanism for redress if you are unfairly dismissed ?
> Can you get your job back or maybe compensation ?
> Once was easy enough to do, but IIRC John Howard stymied it.
> Googling the topic was unfruitful.
>
>
>
> ...... Phil

Well, section 391 allows for reinstatement, but I would have thought it
would be rare for that to be a practical solution. There may, I suppose,
be cases where the unfair dismissal was a result of procedures in a
large company, but most unfair dismissals would probably involve some
sort of personal conflicts which would still be there after a reinstatement.

Section 392 provides for compensation.

Sylvia.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Sylvia Else wrote

>> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
>> legislation.
>
>> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>

> What if any is the mechanism for redress if you are unfairly dismissed ?

Same as it has always been.

> Can you get your job back or maybe compensation ?

Yep.

> Once was easy enough to do,

Easy enough to make a claim, not so easy to substantiate the claim.

> but IIRC John Howard stymied it.

Bullshit. It isn't even a federal matter, fool.

> Googling the topic was unfruitful.

Because you are too stupid to do that.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 11:22:57 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 16/07/2022 11:48 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16-July-22 8:36 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 16/07/2022 7:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is
>>>>>>> sacked, could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked
>>>>>>> instead because Person A has been at the organisation longer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the
>>>>> more experienced employee, how could that be fair?
>>>>
>>>> It isn't about fair. It can make sense to do that if they are paid
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> Happens all the time in the fast food industry because new kids are
>>>> cheaper.
>>>
>>> I mean if all other things are equal.
>>>
>>> If both employees are paid equal and there are no promotions
>>> forthcoming to either employee, then if the more experienced employee
>>> is dismissed, that would be unfair.
>> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
>> legislation.
>>
>> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
>
> The words in that section are "harsh, unjust or unreasonable".

Yes, the employer is free to choose to sack someone else who
isnt as useful to the operation. And so they should be too.

> If a person is sacked instead of someone with less experience, then I
> would say that it equates to the words above.

Mpre fool you, it doesnt. Particularly if you are more experienced
in terms of time working for that employer but not as useful in other
respects like being harder to get on with or being a clock watcher etc,

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is
>>>>>>> sacked, could Person A claim that Person B should have been sacked
>>>>>>> instead because Person A has been at the organisation longer?

>>>>>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?

>>>>>> No.

>>>>> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the
>>>>> more experienced employee, how could that be fair?

>>>> It isn't about fair. It can make sense to do that if they are paid
>>>> more.

>>>> Happens all the time in the fast food industry because new kids are
>>>> cheaper.

>>> I mean if all other things are equal.
>> They never are. There are far too many variables for that.
>> The other obvious variables are how pleasant their personality is,
>> how reliable they are, whether they are a union nit picker etc etc etc.

>>> If both employees are paid equal and there are no promotions
>>> forthcoming to either employee, then if the more experienced employee
>>> is dismissed, that would be unfair.

>> Wrong if they are more useful to the employer or just more pleasant to
>> be around etc.

> If they were not pleasant to be around, why weren't they sacked before
> then?

Because quite a bit of the time it isnt that easy to find a better
employee.

> It is not just or reasonable for an employer to sack a more experienced
> person, just because they might like the other person a bit more, when
> this does not affect the person's effectiveness in the job.

But it does affect a person's effectiveness in the job.

> Clearly they must be effective otherwise they would have been sacked and
> wouldn't have kept the job for so long.

Wrong, as always.

On 17/07/2022 11:37 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max the brain dead TRoll wrote:
>
> =====================
>>>
>>>> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
>>>> legislation.
>>>>
>>>> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** What if any is the mechanism for redress if you are unfairly dismissed ?
>>> Can you get your job back or maybe compensation ?
>>
>> Often it would be compensation. Maybe 6-12 months of salary.
>>
>
>
> FYI "mechanism" = what court or tribunal adjudicates the issue.
>

What you expect as an answer is not the slightest bit of my concern.

I post whatever I want, whenever I want.

Max the brain dead TRoll wrote:
=====================

> >
> > FYI "mechanism" = what court or tribunal adjudicates the issue.
> >
> What you expect as an answer is not the slightest bit of my concern.

** LOL - the troll's moto.

> I post whatever I want, whenever I want.

** The raving lunatic's motto.

FOAD .

On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 11:55:38 AM UTC+10, Rod Speed wrote:
> Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Sylvia Else wrote
> >> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
> >> legislation.
> >
> >> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
> > What if any is the mechanism for redress if you are unfairly dismissed ?
> Same as it has always been.

** Ridiculous bullshit.

> > Once was easy enough to do,
> Easy enough to make a claim, not so easy to substantiate the claim.

** No, was easy to get compensation in the 1980's

> > but IIRC John Howard stymied it.
>
> Bullshit.

** He did, by eliminating businesses with less than 100 employees.

> It isn't even a federal matter, fool.

** Yes it is, keeps changing too.

NSW has a Fair Work Commission, but you must be employed for 12 months for a small business.

...... Phil

On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 12:43:34 +1000, Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 11:55:38 AM UTC+10, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > Sylvia Else wrote
>> >> The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
>> >> legislation.
>> >
>> >>
>> <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
>> > What if any is the mechanism for redress if you are unfairly
>> dismissed ?

>> Same as it has always been.

> Ridiculous bullshit.

Your sig is sposed to be last with a line with just -- on it in front of
it.

>> > Once was easy enough to do,

>> Easy enough to make a claim, not so easy to substantiate the claim.

> No,

Fraid so.

> was easy to get compensation in the 1980's

Bullshit.

>> > but IIRC John Howard stymied it.

>> Bullshit.

> He did, by eliminating businesses with less than 100 employees.

Bullshit he did.

> > It isn't even a federal matter, fool.

> Yes it is,

Bullshit it is.

> keeps changing too.

Bullshit.

> NSW has a Fair Work Commission, but you must be employed for 12 months
> for a small business.

Which most are, fuckwit.

On 17/07/2022 12:02 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 11:22:57 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 16/07/2022 11:48 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 16-July-22 8:36 pm, Max wrote:
>>>> On 16/07/2022 7:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If an organisation is cutting back employees, and Person A is
>>>>>>>> sacked, could Person A claim that Person B should have been
>>>>>>>> sacked instead because Person A has been at the organisation
>>>>>>>> longer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would there be a basis for this sort of claim in law?
>>>>>>>  No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If an organisation has to sack someone and they choose to sack the
>>>>>> more experienced employee, how could that be fair?
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't about fair. It can make sense to do that if they are paid
>>>>> more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Happens all the time in the fast food industry because new kids are
>>>>> cheaper.
>>>>
>>>> I mean if all other things are equal.
>>>>
>>>> If both employees are paid equal and there are no promotions
>>>> forthcoming to either employee, then if the more experienced
>>>> employee is dismissed, that would be unfair.
>>>  The meaning of "unfair" in this context is defined by the applicable
>>> legislation.
>>>  <www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s385.html>
>>>
>>
>> The words in that section are "harsh, unjust or unreasonable".
>
> Yes, the employer is free to choose to sack someone else who
> isnt as useful to the operation. And so they should be too.
>

If the two employees are equally useful, then it would be unjust to sack
the more experienced employee just because the employer likes the other
person more.

>> If a person is sacked instead of someone with less experience, then I
>> would say that it equates to the words above.
>
> Mpre fool you, it doesnt. Particularly if you are more experienced
> in terms of time working for that employer but not as useful in other
> respects like being harder to get on with or being a clock watcher etc,

Neither of those things makes up for being less experienced. Experience
in a workplace is worth a lot more.

Therefore, it would be unjust to sack someone who is more experienced.
Clearly the employer would be unfairly allowing a personal prejudice to
affect the decision.