On 20/07/2022 7:51 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:58:07 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 20/07/2022 3:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:36:39 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/07/2022 10:38 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:20:26 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/07/2022 5:38 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:00:35 +1000, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 17:56:03 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There we have it.  You are done like a dinner.  There is legal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> precedent for the "last on - first off" practice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>  Bullshit there is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying you know more than the lawyer who wrote the
>>>>>>>>>>> above cited
>>>>>>>>>>> article?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, that even that individual isnt claiming that those with
>>>>>>>>>> the least
>>>>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>>>>> legally must be sacked first. Even a terminal fuckwit such as
>>>>>>>>>> yourself
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> have noticed that even that lawyer says that PRODUCTIVITY is
>>>>>>>>>> also a valid
>>>>>>>>>> way to choose between who will be sacked and who will not be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And he fucks up the later comment about discrimination as
>>>>>>>>>> well. There is
>>>>>>>>>> no illegal discrimination involved in deciding that one
>>>>>>>>>> employee is much
>>>>>>>>>> easier to get on with than another or even that stops the
>>>>>>>>>> employer from
>>>>>>>>>> sacking someone who isnt his mate either.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it wouldnt be the first time some fuckwit lawyer got
>>>>>>>>>> something wrong even if it is stupid enough to claim that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of what you wrote is bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The article is written by a qualified and practising lawyer,
>>>>>>>>> and it says:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The last on-first off practice is generally regarded as fair
>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>> reasonable measure"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I choose to believe what that lawyer has said over you, when
>>>>>>>>> you are not
>>>>>>>>> a qualified and practising lawyer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I doubt if these are courts of law, but always use Lawyers to state
>>>>>>>> ones case. They are "tribunals".
>>>>>>>> https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/fair-work-commission
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And Max I think you are right.
>>>>>>>  Like hell he is. Even that lawyer does NOT say that last on
>>>>>>> first off is
>>>>>>> the only legal way to decide who should be sacked first, JUST that
>>>>>>> the organisation can do it that way if they choose to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The context of what the lawyer wrote is an employer deciding which
>>>>>> positions are redundant, and how an employer can avoid a challenge
>>>>>> to the genuineness of the redundancy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The lawyer says that last on-first off is the safest option for an
>>>>>> employer when selecting which jobs are to become redundant.
>>>>>  He didnt say that was the safest and said that productivity is
>>>>> also a valid
>>>>> and reasonable way to decide who to sack first.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This means that if the employer doesn't employ this principle,
>>>>>> they will be exposed to legal challenges.
>>>
>>>>>  You are just plain wrong about that.
>>>
>>>> He asked this question:
>>>
>>>> "So what criteria can legitimately be applied to the selection of
>>>> particular employees and not others without an employer beingexposed
>>>> to  legal peril, for example discrimination laws?"
>
>>>  And you are so completely incompetant that you can't even
>>> manage to work out that CAN isnt the same thing as MUST
>>> and so you should be the first one to be sacked.
>
>> The context of him saying that, if you read the earlier text, is that
>> there is nothing separating employees other than time served.
>
> He never said anything even remotely like that. In fact he said
> very explicitly indeed that PRODUCTIVITY is just as important.
>

If there is nothing separating employees that means they are both as
productive as each other.

In my workplace, the person with the longest service is the most
productive, so that will work in my favour anyway.

>> In that context he asks what criteria can be used, andhis answer is
>> that shorter time served gets sacked.
>
> He says nothing of the sort and you have just proved
> how completely incompetent you have always been.
>

The work I do is not intepreting a lawyers webpage, so it is totally
irrelevant.

>>>> And he answered it with this:
>>>
>>>> "The last on-first off practice is generally regarded as fair and a
>>>> reasonable measure"
>>>  And he later said that its fine to use PRODUCTIVITY instead.
>>>
>>>> Therefore if an employee wants to avoid legal exposure,and there are
>>>> no  other ways to separate two employees,
>>>  There ALWAYS ARE other ways, like how effective the
>>> employee is, how pleasant they are to deal with, whether
>>> they are too stupid to do anything more challenging than
>>> sweep the floors and clean the dunnys, etc etc etc.
>
>> In my workplace, the boss doesn't care about the personalities of anyone.
>
> You said the exact opposite previously, you silly little pathological liar.
>
>> The work done is only what matters, and time served is the only
>> indicator of how good you are at those tasks.
>
> Wrong. as always.
>
> And if that was actually true, you wouldn't be worried about
> being sacked, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>

I am asking what legally the boss can get away with.

All I have to do is warn him that if tries to sack me I will take legal
action, and then he will not do it.

>>
>>>> they should sack the person with  the least service.
>>>  The employer is NOT legally required to do that and even that lawyer
>>> touting for business isn't actually stupid enough to say that.
>>>
>>>> You mention productivity as another criterion. In my scenario,
>>>> productivity is directly correlated with length of service.
>
>>>  BULLSHIT when you clearly demostrate that you
>>> can't even manage even the most basic logic at work.
>
>> My interpretation of the law is not what I do at work,
>
> But what you do at work will always involve being able to comprehend
> something as simple as that web page unless you are just a dunny cleaner.
>

Not true. There are plently of jobs that do not involve being able to
comprehend legal issues from a web page.

>> so I don't care  about whether that is corrector not, even though I
>> know it is correct.
>
> You are too stupid to work out what is correct.
>

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 17:28:51 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 20/07/2022 7:51 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:58:07 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/07/2022 3:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:36:39 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20/07/2022 10:38 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:20:26 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20/07/2022 5:38 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:00:35 +1000, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 17:56:03 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There we have it. You are done like a dinner. There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precedent for the "last on - first off" practice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit there is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying you know more than the lawyer who wrote the
>>>>>>>>>>>> above cited
>>>>>>>>>>>> article?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, that even that individual isnt claiming that those with
>>>>>>>>>>> the least
>>>>>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>>>>>> legally must be sacked first. Even a terminal fuckwit such as
>>>>>>>>>>> yourself
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> have noticed that even that lawyer says that PRODUCTIVITY is
>>>>>>>>>>> also a valid
>>>>>>>>>>> way to choose between who will be sacked and who will not be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And he fucks up the later comment about discrimination as
>>>>>>>>>>> well. There is
>>>>>>>>>>> no illegal discrimination involved in deciding that one
>>>>>>>>>>> employee is much
>>>>>>>>>>> easier to get on with than another or even that stops the
>>>>>>>>>>> employer from
>>>>>>>>>>> sacking someone who isnt his mate either.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And it wouldnt be the first time some fuckwit lawyer got
>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong even if it is stupid enough to claim that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All of what you wrote is bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The article is written by a qualified and practising lawyer,
>>>>>>>>>> and it says:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The last on-first off practice is generally regarded as fair
>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable measure"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I choose to believe what that lawyer has said over you, when
>>>>>>>>>> you are not
>>>>>>>>>> a qualified and practising lawyer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I doubt if these are courts of law, but always use Lawyers to
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>> ones case. They are "tribunals".
>>>>>>>>> https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/fair-work-commission
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And Max I think you are right.
>>>>>>>> Like hell he is. Even that lawyer does NOT say that last on
>>>>>>>> first off is
>>>>>>>> the only legal way to decide who should be sacked first, JUST that
>>>>>>>> the organisation can do it that way if they choose to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The context of what the lawyer wrote is an employer deciding which
>>>>>>> positions are redundant, and how an employer can avoid a challenge
>>>>>>> to the genuineness of the redundancy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The lawyer says that last on-first off is the safest option for an
>>>>>>> employer when selecting which jobs are to become redundant.
>>>>>> He didnt say that was the safest and said that productivity is
>>>>>> also a valid
>>>>>> and reasonable way to decide who to sack first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This means that if the employer doesn't employ this principle,
>>>>>>> they will be exposed to legal challenges.
>>>>
>>>>>> You are just plain wrong about that.
>>>>
>>>>> He asked this question:
>>>>
>>>>> "So what criteria can legitimately be applied to the selection of
>>>>> particular employees and not others without an employer beingexposed
>>>>> to legal peril, for example discrimination laws?"
>>
>>>> And you are so completely incompetant that you can't even
>>>> manage to work out that CAN isnt the same thing as MUST
>>>> and so you should be the first one to be sacked.
>>
>>> The context of him saying that, if you read the earlier text, is that
>>> there is nothing separating employees other than time served.

>> He never said anything even remotely like that. In fact he said
>> very explicitly indeed that PRODUCTIVITY is just as important.

> If there is nothing separating employees that means they are both as
> productive as each other.

Wrong, as always. And it isnt just about time with that organisation
or productivity either, the employer is free to keep the one who is
more pleasant to have around, who is prepared to go past what is
legally required when the shit is hitting the fan at work, who isnt
a stupid clock watcher, who isnt a nit picking union fuckwit etc
etc etc too.

> In my workplace, the person with the longest service is the most
> productive,

BULLSHIT.

> so that will work in my favour anyway.

Wrong, as always.

>>> In that context he asks what criteria can be used, andhis answer is
>>> that shorter time served gets sacked.
>> He says nothing of the sort and you have just proved
>> how completely incompetent you have always been.

> The work I do is not intepreting a lawyers webpage,

Irrelevant. It isnt just lawyer's web page that you are
too stupid to comprehend, you can't even manage to
work out that planning a crime without involving any
other person is also a crime.

> so it is totally irrelevant.

It is the completely superfluous proof that you are
completely useless and should be the first to go.

>>>>> And he answered it with this:
>>>>
>>>>> "The last on-first off practice is generally regarded as fair and a
>>>>> reasonable measure"
>>>> And he later said that its fine to use PRODUCTIVITY instead.
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore if an employee wants to avoid legal exposure,and there are
>>>>> no other ways to separate two employees,
>>>> There ALWAYS ARE other ways, like how effective the
>>>> employee is, how pleasant they are to deal with, whether
>>>> they are too stupid to do anything more challenging than
>>>> sweep the floors and clean the dunnys, etc etc etc.
>>
>>> In my workplace, the boss doesn't care about the personalities of
>>> anyone.
>> You said the exact opposite previously, you silly little pathological
>> liar.
>>
>>> The work done is only what matters, and time served is the only
>>> indicator of how good you are at those tasks.

https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/

You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.

The title of the page is how to select employees for redundancy. The
lawyern then says that an employer "needs to exercise caution in the
process".

There is no reason why the lawyer would say that caution is needed
unless there was some possible redress that a sacked employee could make.

If there is a situation where two employees have equal productivity and
there is no clear reason to sack one over the other, the lawyer is
saying that the "last on-first off practise is generally regarded as
fair and reasonable measure".

This is in the context of saying that caution is necessary in selecting
who to sack, since choosing the wrong employee could result in legal
exposure.

It is clear that I am right in my scenario, in that I should not be
selected to be sacked instead of someone with less service.

You must be bitter about this subject because of perhaps being sacked in
the past.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/

Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.

> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.

Nope, dope.

> The title of the page is how to select employees for redundancy.

But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy, fuckwit.

> The lawyern then says that an employer "needs to exercise caution in
> the process".

But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy, fuckwit.

> There is no reason why the lawyer would say that caution is needed
> unless there was some possible redress that a sacked employee could make.

But never says that the only legal way to determine who
to sack is last on first off as you pig ignorantly claim.

> If there is a situation where two employees have equal productivity

There never is.

> and there is no clear reason to sack one over the other, the lawyer is
> saying that the "last on-first off practise is generally regarded as
> fair and reasonable measure".

But never says that it is the only fair and reasonable measure.

> This is in the context of saying that caution is necessary in selecting
> who to sack, since choosing the wrong employee could result in legal
> exposure.

Yes, but he never says that last on first off is the only fair and
reasonable measure.

In fact he clearly says that productivity is too and it is also
perfectly fair and reasonable to keep the individual who is
prepared to do what it takes when the shit hits the fan at
work and sack the legalistic pig ignorant wanker like you.

> It is clear that I am right in my scenario, in that I should not be
> selected to be sacked instead of someone with less service.

Even that lawyer says nothing even remotely like that.

> You must be bitter about this subject becauseof perhaps being sacked in
> the past.

Nope, never ever have been.

I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

On 23/07/2022 4:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/
>
> Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
> you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.
>

If there is a clear sacking of someone (whether by non-renewal or
termination) and replacing of that person with someone else, without
good cause, then would be unfair dismissal.

That is the reason why there are unfair dismissal laws. To prevent
exactly that kind of thing happening.

You cannot replace someone, just because you like someone else a bit
more, or like they way they look in a non-customer facing role. If
someone has been productive and not had misconduct, then replacing them
is unfair dismissal.

>> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.
>
> Nope, dope.
>
>> The title of the page is how to select employees for redundancy.
>
> But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy, fuckwit.
>
>> The  lawyern then says that an employer "needs to exercise caution in
>> the process".
>
> But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy, fuckwit.
>
>> There is no reason why the lawyer would say that caution is needed
>> unless there was some possible redress that a sacked employee could make.
>
> But never says that the only legal way to determine who
> to sack is last on first off as you pig ignorantly claim.
>
>> If there is a situation where two employees have equal productivity
>
> There never is.
>

Bullshit. There are situations where there is no clear advantage to any
employee, therefore making time served as the only way to separate
employees.

Time served indicates experience at that job and field, which is the
clearest way to indicate which employee is more productive at that
workplace.

>> and  there is no clear reason to sack one over the other, the lawyer
>> is saying that the "last on-first off practise is generally regarded
>> as fair and reasonable measure".
>
> But never says that it is the only fair and reasonable measure.
>
>> This is in the context of saying that caution is necessary in
>> selecting who to sack, since choosing the wrong employee could result
>> in legal exposure.
>
> Yes, but he never says that last on first off is the only fair and
> reasonable measure.
>
> In fact he clearly says that productivity is too and it is also
> perfectly fair and reasonable to keep the individual who is
> prepared to do what it takes when the shit hits the fan at
> work and sack the legalistic pig ignorant wanker like you.
>

In my scenario, there is no evidence that I would be inferior in these
ways, and my longer service would make up for any difference anyway.

>> It is clear that I am right in my scenario, in that I should not be
>> selected to be sacked instead of someone with less service.
>
> Even that lawyer says nothing even remotely like that.
>
>> You must be bitter about this subject becauseof perhaps being sacked
>> in  the past.
>
> Nope, never ever have been.
>
> I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
> like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

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

>>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/

>> Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
>> you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.

> If there is a clear sacking of someone

Not renewing your contract isn't sacking you.

> (whether by non-renewal

Not renewing your contract isn't sacking you.

> or termination) and replacing of that person with someoneelse, without
> good cause, then would be unfair dismissal.

Wrong, as always when the contract is not renewed.

> That is the reason why there are unfair dismissal laws.

Not renewing your contract isn't dismissal.

> To prevent exactly that kind of thing happening.

It does nothing of the kind when your contract is not renewed.

And it isn't academic either, the operation that a mate of mine
works for has a hell of a history of not renewing contracts when
they decide that that particular employee is no longer required.

> You cannot replace someone, just because you like someone elsea bit
> more, or like they way they look in a non-customer facing role.

Yes you can.

> If someone has been productive and not hadmisconduct, then replacing
> them is unfair dismissal.

Wrong, as always. In spades when their contract is not renewed.

>>> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.

>> Nope, dope.

>>> The title of the page is how to select employees for redundancy.

>> But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy,
>> fuckwit.

>>> The lawyern then says that an employer "needs to exercise caution in
>>> the process".

>> But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy,
>> fuckwit.

>>> There is no reason why the lawyer would say that caution is needed
>>> unless there was some possible redress that a sacked employee could
>>> make.

>> But never says that the only legal way to determine who
>> to sack is last on first off as you pig ignorantly claim.

>>> If there is a situation where two employees have equal productivity

>> There never is.

> Bullshit.

Fact.

> There are situations where there is no clear advantage to any employee,

There ALWAYS is.

> therefore making time served as the only way to separate employees.

Even that lawyer says nothing even remotely like that.

> Time served indicates experience at that job and field,

But says nothing about their productivity, how easy they
are to get on with, how prepared they are to do more than
they are legally required to do when the shit hits the fan at
work, or even if they are a complete pain in the arse like you
of even they can manage even the most basic comprehension
and logic, which you endlessly keep proving you can not.

> which is the clearest way to indicate which employee is more productive
> at that workplace.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

>>> and there is no clear reason to sack one over the other, the lawyer
>>> is saying that the "last on-first off practise is generally regarded
>>> as fair and reasonable measure".

>> But never says that it is the only fair and reasonable measure.

>>> This is in the context of saying that caution is necessary in
>>> selecting who to sack, since choosing the wrong employee could result
>>> in legal exposure.

>> Yes, but he never says that last on first off is the only fair and
>> reasonable measure.

>> In fact he clearly says that productivity is too and it is also
>> perfectly fair and reasonable to keep the individual who is
>> prepared to do what it takes when the shit hits the fan at
>> work and sack the legalistic pig ignorant wanker like you.

> In my scenario, there is no evidence that I would be inferior in these
> ways,

Every single post of yours is that evidence, including
your threat about what you would do if you were sacked.

> and my longer service would make up for any difference anyway.

Wrong, as always.

>>> It is clear that I am right in my scenario, in that I should not be
>>> selected to be sacked instead of someone with less service.

>> Even that lawyer says nothing even remotely like that.

>>> You must be bitter about this subject because of perhaps being sacked
>>> in the past.

>> Nope, never ever have been.

>> I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
>> like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

On 23/07/2022 4:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/
>
> Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
> you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.
>
>> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.
>
> Nope, dope.
>
>> The title of the page is how to select employees for redundancy.
>
> But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy, fuckwit.
>
>> The  lawyern then says that an employer "needs to exercise caution in
>> the process".
>
> But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy, fuckwit.
>
>> There is no reason why the lawyer would say that caution is needed
>> unless there was some possible redress that a sacked employee could make.
>
> But never says that the only legal way to determine who
> to sack is last on first off as you pig ignorantly claim.
>
>> If there is a situation where two employees have equal productivity
>
> There never is.
>
>> and  there is no clear reason to sack one over the other, the lawyer
>> is saying that the "last on-first off practise is generally regarded
>> as fair and reasonable measure".
>
> But never says that it is the only fair and reasonable measure.
>
>> This is in the context of saying that caution is necessary in
>> selecting who to sack, since choosing the wrong employee could result
>> in legal exposure.
>
> Yes, but he never says that last on first off is the only fair and
> reasonable measure.
>
> In fact he clearly says that productivity is too and it is also
> perfectly fair and reasonable to keep the individual who is
> prepared to do what it takes when the shit hits the fan at
> work and sack the legalistic pig ignorant wanker like you.
>
>> It is clear that I am right in my scenario, in that I should not be
>> selected to be sacked instead of someone with less service.
>
> Even that lawyer says nothing even remotely like that.
>
>> You must be bitter about this subject becauseof perhaps being sacked
>> in  the past.
>
> Nope, never ever have been.
>

That is suprising since you have been put in the Penalty Box on Whirlpool.

That is indication of your bad personality and that you are a pain in
the arse.

If that is important for "productivity", as you say it is, then you
should have been sacked many times.

> I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
> like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

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

>>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/

>> Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
>> you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.

>>> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.

That web page doesn't even consider the contract not being renewed.

>> Nope, dope.

>>> The title of the page is how to select employees for redundancy.

>> But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy,
>> fuckwit.
>>
>>> The lawyern then says that an employer "needs to exercise caution in
>>> the process".
>> But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy,
>> fuckwit.
>>
>>> There is no reason why the lawyer would say that caution is needed
>>> unless there was some possible redress that a sacked employee could
>>> make.
>> But never says that the only legal way to determine who
>> to sack is last on first off as you pig ignorantly claim.
>>
>>> If there is a situation where two employees have equal productivity
>> There never is.
>>
>>> and there is no clear reason to sack one over the other, the lawyer
>>> is saying that the "last on-first off practise is generally regarded
>>> as fair and reasonable measure".
>> But never says that it is the only fair and reasonable measure.
>>
>>> This is in the context of saying that caution is necessary in
>>> selecting who to sack, since choosing the wrong employee could result
>>> in legal exposure.
>> Yes, but he never says that last on first off is the only fair and
>> reasonable measure.
>> In fact he clearly says that productivity is too and it is also
>> perfectly fair and reasonable to keep the individual who is
>> prepared to do what it takes when the shit hits the fan at
>> work and sack the legalistic pig ignorant wanker like you.
>>
>>> It is clear that I am right in my scenario, in that I should not be
>>> selected to be sacked instead of someone with less service.
>> Even that lawyer says nothing even remotely like that.
>>
>>> You must be bitter about this subject becauseof perhaps being sacked
>>> in the past.

>> Nope, never ever have been.

> That is suprising since you have been put in the Penalty Box on
> Whirlpool.

That isnt an employer, fuckwit.

> That is indication of your bad personality and that you are a pain in
> the arse.

Nope, just that fuckwit had it in for me.

AND I never said that they can't do that, fuckwit.

> If that is important for "productivity", as you say it is,

I never ever said anything even remotely like that.

> then you should have been sacked many times.

I have never been.

>> I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
>> like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

On 23/07/2022 7:47 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/
>
>>>  Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
>>> you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.
>
>>>> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.
>
> That web page doesn't even consider the contract not being renewed.
>

People on contracts that are continually renewed are treated as
continuing employees for the purpose of unfair dismissal and redunancy laws.

If someone's contract is not renewed and immediately following that
another person is given a contract doing the same work, that would be
unfair dismissal.

If a long term employee's contract is not renewed due to a redundancy
and someone has to be selected to be let go, then the above article is
relevant. The employer has to be careful to select the right person to
be let go, or else they will be legally exposed, as the article says.

>>>  Nope, dope.
>
>>>> The title of the page is how to select employees for redundancy.
>
>>>  But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy,
>>> fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> The  lawyern then says that an employer "needs to exercise caution
>>>> in the process".
>>>  But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy,
>>> fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> There is no reason why the lawyer would say that caution is needed
>>>> unless there was some possible redress that a sacked employee could
>>>> make.
>>>  But never says that the only legal way to determine who
>>> to sack is last on first off as you pig ignorantly claim.
>>>
>>>> If there is a situation where two employees have equal productivity
>>>  There never is.
>>>
>>>> and  there is no clear reason to sack one over the other, the lawyer
>>>> is saying that the "last on-first off practise is generally regarded
>>>> as fair and reasonable measure".
>>>  But never says that it is the only fair and reasonable measure.
>>>
>>>> This is in the context of saying that caution is necessary in
>>>> selecting who to sack, since choosing the wrong employee could
>>>> result in legal exposure.
>>>  Yes, but he never says that last on first off is the only fair and
>>> reasonable measure.
>>>  In fact he clearly says that productivity is too and it is also
>>> perfectly fair and reasonable to keep the individual who is
>>> prepared to do what it takes when the shit hits the fan at
>>> work and sack the legalistic pig ignorant wanker like you.
>>>
>>>> It is clear that I am right in my scenario, in that I should not be
>>>> selected to be sacked instead of someone with less service.
>>>  Even that lawyer says nothing even remotely like that.
>>>
>>>> You must be bitter about this subject becauseof perhaps being sacked
>>>> in  the past.
>
>>>  Nope, never ever have been.
>
>> That is suprising since you have been put in the Penalty Box on
>> Whirlpool.
>
> That isnt an employer, fuckwit.
>
>> That is indication of your bad personality and that you are a pain in
>> the arse.
>
> Nope, just that fuckwit had it in for me.
>
> AND I never said that they can't do that, fuckwit.
>

It shows you have a bad personality and would not be good to work with.

You said that you think I should be sacked based on my posts here. I am
saying you should have been sacked due to the way you behave on Whirlpool.

The fact that you have never been sacked proves that your theory is false.

>> If that is important for "productivity", as you say it is,
>
> I never ever said anything even remotely like that.
>

See above.

>> then you  should have been sacked many times.
>
> I have never been.
>
>>> I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
>>> like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

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

>>>>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/

>>>> Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
>>>> you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.

>>>>> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.

>> That web page doesn't even consider the contract not being renewed.

> People on contracts that are continually renewed are treated as
> continuing employees for the purpose of unfair dismissal and redunancy
> laws.

Wrong, as always.

> If someone's contract is not renewed and immediately following that
> another person is given a contract doing the same work, that would be
> unfair dismissal.

Wrong, as always.

What they actually do is employ a new individual and later dont renew the
contract of someone else who had been on contract before the new person.

Happens all the time where a mate of mine works and NOT ONE whose
contract has not been renewed has ever been compensated when their
contract has not been renewed.

> If a long term employee's contract is not renewed due to a redundancy

It is just not renewed. Nothing whatever to do with redundancy.

> and someone has to be selected to be let go, then the above article is
> relevant.

Wrong, as always.

> The employer has to be careful to select the right person to belet go,
> or else they will be legally exposed, as the article says.

It never ever says that about a contract that is not renewed.

>>>> Nope, dope.
>>
>>>>> The title of the page is how to select employees for redundancy.
>>
>>>> But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy,
>>>> fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>> The lawyern then says that an employer "needs to exercise caution
>>>>> in the process".
>>>> But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy,
>>>> fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>> There is no reason why the lawyer would say that caution is needed
>>>>> unless there was some possible redress that a sacked employee could
>>>>> make.
>>>> But never says that the only legal way to determine who
>>>> to sack is last on first off as you pig ignorantly claim.
>>>>
>>>>> If there is a situation where two employees have equal productivity
>>>> There never is.
>>>>
>>>>> and there is no clear reason to sack one over the other, the lawyer
>>>>> is saying that the "last on-first off practise is generally regarded
>>>>> as fair and reasonable measure".
>>>> But never says that it is the only fair and reasonable measure.
>>>>
>>>>> This is in the context of saying that caution is necessary in
>>>>> selecting who to sack, since choosing the wrong employee could
>>>>> result in legal exposure.
>>>> Yes, but he never says that last on first off is the only fair and
>>>> reasonable measure.
>>>> In fact he clearly says that productivity is too and it is also
>>>> perfectly fair and reasonable to keep the individual who is
>>>> prepared to do what it takes when the shit hits the fan at
>>>> work and sack the legalistic pig ignorant wanker like you.
>>>>
>>>>> It is clear that I am right in my scenario, in that I should not be
>>>>> selected to be sacked instead of someone with less service.
>>>> Even that lawyer says nothing even remotely like that.
>>>>
>>>>> You must be bitter about this subject becauseof perhaps being sacked
>>>>> in the past.
>>
>>>> Nope, never ever have been.
>>
>>> That is suprising since you have been put in the Penalty Box on
>>> Whirlpool.
>> That isnt an employer, fuckwit.
>>
>>> That is indication of your bad personality and that you are a pain in
>>> the arse.
>> Nope, just that fuckwit had it in for me.
>> AND I never said that they can't do that, fuckwit.
>>
>
> It shows you have a bad personality and would not be good to work with.

Wrong, as always. I have never ever been sacked from any job.

> You said that you think I should be sacked based on my posts here.

I never ever said anything of the kind.

> I am saying you should have been sacked due to the way you behave on
> Whirlpool.

Wrong, as always.

> The fact that you have never been sacked proves that your theory is
> false.

Wrong, as always. And it isnt a theory, it is a fact when a contract is
not renewed.

>>> If that is important for "productivity", as you say it is,

>> I never ever said anything even remotely like that.

> See above.

Completely useless as always with your pig ignorant shit.

>>> then you should have been sacked many times.
>> I have never been.
>>
>>>> I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
>>>> like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

On 24/07/2022 2:18 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>>>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>  Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
>>>>> you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.
>
>>>>>> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.
>
>>>  That web page doesn't even consider the contract not being renewed.
>
>> People on contracts that are continually renewed are treated as
>> continuing employees for the purpose of unfair dismissal and redunancy
>> laws.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>

You are incorrect. In the context of long term rolling contracts:

"If you seek to end the employment relationship on the same date as the
contract expires, you will be in effect dismissing the employee,
triggering obligations and rights that may attach to this event, e.g.
unfair dismissal, redundancy and notice."

https://employmentlawhandbook.com.au/question-and-answer/rolling-fixed-term-contracts/

>> If someone's contract is not renewed and immediately following that
>> another person is given a contract doing the same work, that would be
>> unfair dismissal.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>

See above.

> What they actually do is employ a new individual and later dont renew the
> contract of someone else who had been on contract before the new person.
>
> Happens all the time where a mate of mine works and NOT ONE whose
> contract has not been renewed has ever been compensated when their
> contract has not been renewed.
>

Then that would be a redundancy, and the employer has to be careful to
select the right employee to be dismissed, or they risk legal exposure.

I don't care if your mate's company f*cks people over. That doesn't
happen where I work.

>> If a long term employee's contract is not renewed due to a redundancy
>
> It is just not renewed. Nothing whatever to do with redundancy.
>
>> and someone has to be selected to be let go, then the above article is
>> relevant.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> The employer has to be careful to select the right person to  belet
>> go, or else they will be legally exposed, as the article says.
>
> It never ever says that about a contract that is not renewed.
>

It doesn't have to say that. The above quote shows that non-renewal of a
contract can trigger unfair dismissal or redundancy obligations.

>>>>>  Nope, dope.
>>>
>>>>>> The title of the page is how to select employees for redundancy.
>>>
>>>>>  But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy,
>>>>> fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The  lawyern then says that an employer "needs to exercise caution
>>>>>> in the process".
>>>>>  But never says that that is the only legal way to do redundancy,
>>>>> fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no reason why the lawyer would say that caution is needed
>>>>>> unless there was some possible redress that a sacked employee
>>>>>> could make.
>>>>>  But never says that the only legal way to determine who
>>>>> to sack is last on first off as you pig ignorantly claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is a situation where two employees have equal productivity
>>>>>  There never is.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and  there is no clear reason to sack one over the other, the
>>>>>> lawyer is saying that the "last on-first off practise is generally
>>>>>> regarded as fair and reasonable measure".
>>>>>  But never says that it is the only fair and reasonable measure.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is in the context of saying that caution is necessary in
>>>>>> selecting who to sack, since choosing the wrong employee could
>>>>>> result in legal exposure.
>>>>>  Yes, but he never says that last on first off is the only fair and
>>>>> reasonable measure.
>>>>>  In fact he clearly says that productivity is too and it is also
>>>>> perfectly fair and reasonable to keep the individual who is
>>>>> prepared to do what it takes when the shit hits the fan at
>>>>> work and sack the legalistic pig ignorant wanker like you.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is clear that I am right in my scenario, in that I should not
>>>>>> be selected to be sacked instead of someone with less service.
>>>>>  Even that lawyer says nothing even remotely like that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You must be bitter about this subject becauseof perhaps being
>>>>>> sacked in  the past.
>>>
>>>>>  Nope, never ever have been.
>>>
>>>> That is suprising since you have been put in the Penalty Box on
>>>> Whirlpool.
>>>  That isnt an employer, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> That is indication of your bad personality and that you are a pain
>>>> in the arse.
>>>  Nope, just that fuckwit had it in for me.
>>>  AND I never said that they can't do that, fuckwit.
>>>
>>
>> It shows you have a bad personality and would not be good to work with.
>
> Wrong, as always. I have never ever been sacked from any job.
>

All that proves is that the personality aspects of a person that you
have been going on about are not relevant to productivity in a job. So
you have been wrong about that.

>> You said that you think I should be sacked based on my posts here.
>
> I never ever said anything of the kind.
>

You have been saying I should be sacked going by my posts here. You
think my posts indicate a problem with my personality and abilities
which should cause me to be sacked.

If that were true, then you would have been sacked going by your posts
on Whirlpool that led to you getting put in the Penalty Bin.

>> I am  saying you should have been sacked due to the way you behave on
>> Whirlpool.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> The fact that you have never been sacked proves that your theory is
>> false.
>
> Wrong, as always. And it isnt a theory, it is a fact when a contract is
> not renewed.
>
>>>> If that is important for "productivity", as you say it is,
>
>>>  I never ever said anything even remotely like that.
>
>> See above.
>
> Completely useless as always with your pig ignorant shit.
>
>>>> then you  should have been sacked many times.
>>>  I have never been.
>>>
>>>>> I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
>>>>> like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

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

>>>>>>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/

>>>>>> Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
>>>>>> you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.

>>>>>>> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.

>>>> That web page doesn't even consider the contract not being renewed.

>>> People on contracts that are continually renewed are treated as
>>> continuing employees for the purpose of unfair dismissal and redunancy
>>> laws.

>> Wrong, as always.

> You are incorrect.

Wrong, as always.

> In the context of long term rolling contracts:

> "If you seek to end the employment relationship on the same dateas the
> contract expires, you will be in effect dismissing the employee,
> triggering obligations and rights that may attach to this event, e.g.
> unfair dismissal, redundancy and notice."

> https://employmentlawhandbook.com.au/question-and-answer/rolling-fixed-term-contracts/

Nothing unfair about deciding that one employee is less useful to the
operation than another, fuckwit.

>>> If someone's contract is not renewed and immediately following that
>>> another person is given a contract doing the same work, that would be
>>> unfair dismissal.

>> Wrong, as always.

> See above.

Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant shit.

>> What they actually do is employ a new individual and later dont renew
>> the
>> contract of someone else who had been on contract before the new person.
>> Happens all the time where a mate of mine works and NOT ONE whose
>> contract has not been renewed has ever been compensated when their
>> contract has not been renewed.

> Then that would be a redundancy,

Nope, just the employer deciding that one particular
employee is not as useful to the operation as another.

> and the employer has to be careful to select the right employee to be
> dismissed,

Trivial to work out that one employee is less useful to the operation than
another.

> or they risk legal exposure.

Nope.

> I don't care if your mate's company f*cks people over. That doesn't
> happen where I work.

It will, you watch.

>>> If a long term employee's contract is not renewed due to a redundancy
>> It is just not renewed. Nothing whatever to do with redundancy.
>>
>>> and someone has to be selected to be let go, then the above article is
>>> relevant.
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> The employer has to be careful to select the right person to belet
>>> go, or else they will be legally exposed, as the article says.

>> It never ever says that about a contract that is not renewed.

> It doesn't have to say that. The above quote shows that non-renewal of a
> contract can trigger unfair dismissal or redundancy obligations.

But doesnt when the operation decides that one employee
like you is less useful to the operation than another.

>>>>>>> You must be bitter about this subject because of perhaps being
>>>>>>> sacked in the past.

>>>>>> Nope, never ever have been.
>>>>
>>>>> That is suprising since you have been put in the Penalty Box on
>>>>> Whirlpool.

>>>> That isnt an employer, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>> That is indication of your bad personality and that you are a pain
>>>>> in the arse.

>>>> Nope, just that fuckwit had it in for me.
>>>> AND I never said that they can't do that, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It shows you have a bad personality and would not be good to work with.

>> Wrong, as always. I have never ever been sacked from any job.

> All that proves is that the personality aspects of a person that you
> have been going on about are not relevant to productivity in a job.

Wrong, as always. That was in fact the reason that those who did
not have their contract renewed at my mate's work did not have
their contract renewed and they got to like that or lump it.

> So you have been wrong about that.

Nope, dope.

>>> You said that you think I should be sacked based on my posts here.

>> I never ever said anything of the kind.

> You have been saying I should be sacked going by my posts here.

I never ever said anything of the kind.

> You think my posts indicate a problem with my personality

That is obvious to anyone.

> and abilities which should cause me to be sacked.

Nope, replaced by someone better.

> If that were true, then you would have been sacked going by yourposts
> on Whirlpool that led to you getting put in the Penalty Bin.

Nope, all I did that caused that was to say that someone else was trolling.

Whirlpool doesn't allow anyone to say that.

>>> I am saying you should have been sacked due to the way you behave on
>>> Whirlpool.
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> The fact that you have never been sacked proves that your theory is
>>> false.
>> Wrong, as always. And it isnt a theory, it is a fact when a contract
>> is not renewed.
>>
>>>>> If that is important for "productivity", as you say it is,
>>
>>>> I never ever said anything even remotely like that.
>>
>>> See above.
>> Completely useless as always with your pig ignorant shit.
>>
>>>>> then you should have been sacked many times.
>>>> I have never been.
>>>>
>>>>>> I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
>>>>>> like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

On 24/07/2022 5:12 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>>>>>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>  Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
>>>>>>> you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.
>
>>>>>>>> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.
>
>>>>>  That web page doesn't even consider the contract not being renewed.
>
>>>> People on contracts that are continually renewed are treated as
>>>> continuing employees for the purpose of unfair dismissal and
>>>> redunancy laws.
>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>> You are incorrect.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> In the context of long term rolling contracts:
>
>> "If you seek to end the employment relationship on the same dateas
>> the  contract expires, you will be in effect dismissing the employee,
>> triggering obligations and rights that may attach to this event, e.g.
>> unfair dismissal, redundancy and notice."
>
>> https://employmentlawhandbook.com.au/question-and-answer/rolling-fixed-term-contracts/
>>
>
> Nothing unfair about deciding that one employee is less useful to the
> operation than another, fuckwit.
>

In my scenario, I am more useful than the other employee because I have
been working there longer, and time served is the only way to determine
usefulness where I work.

>>>> If someone's contract is not renewed and immediately following that
>>>> another person is given a contract doing the same work, that would
>>>> be unfair dismissal.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>> See above.
>
> Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant shit.
>
>>> What they actually do is employ a new individual and later dont renew
>>> the
>>> contract of someone else who had been on contract before the new person.
>>>  Happens all the time where a mate of mine works and NOT ONE whose
>>> contract has not been renewed has ever been compensated when their
>>> contract has not been renewed.
>
>> Then that would be a redundancy,
>
> Nope, just the employer deciding that one particular
> employee is not as useful to the operation as another.
>

Someone is not more useful just because you like them a bit more, or
they have a similar ethnic background.

>> and the employer has to be careful to select the right employee to be
>> dismissed,
>
> Trivial to work out that one employee is less useful to the operation
> than another.
>

Time served is the only way to determine usefulness at my workplace.

>> or they risk legal exposure.
>
> Nope.
>
>> I don't care if your mate's company f*cks people over. That doesn't
>> happen where I work.
>
> It will, you watch.
>

If it does then I will take it to court, and win.

>>>> If a long term employee's contract is not renewed due to a redundancy
>>>  It is just not renewed. Nothing whatever to do with redundancy.
>>>
>>>> and someone has to be selected to be let go, then the above article
>>>> is relevant.
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>>> The employer has to be careful to select the right person to  belet
>>>> go, or else they will be legally exposed, as the article says.
>
>>>  It never ever says that about a contract that is not renewed.
>
>> It doesn't have to say that. The above quote shows that non-renewal of
>> a contract can trigger unfair dismissal or redundancy obligations.
>
> But doesnt when the operation decides that one employee
> like you is less useful to the operation than another.
>

They can't do that because I have worked there longer, which is the only
measure of usefulness at my workplace.

>>>>>>>> You must be bitter about this subject because of perhaps being
>>>>>>>> sacked in  the past.
>
>>>>>>>  Nope, never ever have been.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is suprising since you have been put in the Penalty Box on
>>>>>> Whirlpool.
>
>>>>>  That isnt an employer, fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is indication of your bad personality and that you are a pain
>>>>>> in the arse.
>
>>>>>  Nope, just that fuckwit had it in for me.
>>>>>  AND I never said that they can't do that, fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It shows you have a bad personality and would not be good to work with.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always. I have never ever been sacked from any job.
>
>> All that proves is that the personality aspects of a person that you
>> have been going on about are not relevant to productivity in a job.
>
> Wrong, as always. That was in fact the reason that those who did
> not have their contract renewed at my mate's work did not have
> their contract renewed and they got to like that or lump it.
>

If they had been replaced by someone else, then they could have
challenged it.

>> So   you have been wrong about that.
>
> Nope, dope.
>
>>>> You said that you think I should be sacked based on my posts here.
>
>>>  I never ever said anything of the kind.
>
>> You have been saying I should be sacked going by my posts here.
>
> I never ever said anything of the kind.
>

You said this:

"or even if they are a complete pain in the arse like you"

Therefore you are saying I should be sacked going by the personality I
exhibit on this newsgroup.

>> You  think my posts indicate a problem with my personality
>
> That is obvious to anyone.
>
>> and abilities  which should cause me to be sacked.
>
> Nope, replaced by someone better.
>

The other person is not better.

>> If that were true, then you would have been sacked going by yourposts
>> on Whirlpool that led to you getting put in the Penalty Bin.
>
> Nope, all I did that caused that was to say that someone else was trolling.
>
> Whirlpool doesn't allow anyone to say that.
>

That's rubbish. Heaps of people say that someone is a troll.

You must have been abusive or trolled yourself.

>>>> I am  saying you should have been sacked due to the way you behave
>>>> on  Whirlpool.
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>>> The fact that you have never been sacked proves that your theory is
>>>> false.
>>>  Wrong, as always. And it isnt a theory, it is a fact when a contract
>>> is not renewed.
>>>
>>>>>> If that is important for "productivity", as you say it is,
>>>
>>>>>  I never ever said anything even remotely like that.
>>>
>>>> See above.
>>>  Completely useless as always with your pig ignorant shit.
>>>
>>>>>> then you  should have been sacked many times.
>>>>>  I have never been.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
>>>>>>> like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

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

>>>>>>>>> https://fairworklegaladvice.com.au/selection-criteria-for-redundancies/
>>
>>>>>>>> Your employer doesn't have to use redundancy to replace
>>>>>>>> you with that other woman, JUST not renew your contract.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You're interpretation of this web-page is wrong.
>>
>>>>>> That web page doesn't even consider the contract not being renewed.
>>
>>>>> People on contracts that are continually renewed are treated as
>>>>> continuing employees for the purpose of unfair dismissal and
>>>>> redunancy laws.
>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> You are incorrect.
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> In the context of long term rolling contracts:
>>
>>> "If you seek to end the employment relationship on the same dateas
>>> the contract expires, you will be in effect dismissing the employee,
>>> triggering obligations and rights that may attach to this event, e.g.
>>> unfair dismissal, redundancy and notice."
>>
>>> https://employmentlawhandbook.com.au/question-and-answer/rolling-fixed-term-contracts/
>> Nothing unfair about deciding that one employee is less useful to the
>> operation than another, fuckwit.

> In my scenario, I am more useful than the other employee because I have
> been working there longer,

Wrong, as always.

> and time served is the only way to determine usefulness where I work.

Wrong, as always.

>>>>> If someone's contract is not renewed and immediately following that
>>>>> another person is given a contract doing the same work, that would
>>>>> be unfair dismissal.
>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> See above.
>> Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant shit.
>>
>>>> What they actually do is employ a new individual and later dont renew
>>>> the
>>>> contract of someone else who had been on contract before the new
>>>> person.
>>>> Happens all the time where a mate of mine works and NOT ONE whose
>>>> contract has not been renewed has ever been compensated when their
>>>> contract has not been renewed.
>>
>>> Then that would be a redundancy,

>> Nope, just the employer deciding that one particular
>> employee is not as useful to the operation as another.

> Someone is not more useful just because you like them a bit more,

Wrong, as always. It makes them a lot more pleasant to deal with.

> or they have a similar ethnic background.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

>>> and the employer has to be careful to select the right employee to be
>>> dismissed,
>> Trivial to work out that one employee is less useful to the operation
>> than another.

> Time served is the only way to determine usefulness at my workplace.

Wrong, as always.

>>> or they risk legal exposure.
>> Nope.
>>
>>> I don't care if your mate's company f*cks people over. That doesn't
>>> happen where I work.
>> It will, you watch.

> If it does then I will take it to court,

No chance of that given that even those with a no win
no fee service would be stupid enough to take that case.

> and win.

Have fun listing even a single example of anyone who has in that situation.

>>>>> If a long term employee's contract is not renewed due to a redundancy
>>>> It is just not renewed. Nothing whatever to do with redundancy.
>>>>
>>>>> and someone has to be selected to be let go, then the above article
>>>>> is relevant.
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> The employer has to be careful to select the right person to belet
>>>>> go, or else they will be legally exposed, as the article says.
>>
>>>> It never ever says that about a contract that is not renewed.
>>
>>> It doesn't have to say that. The above quote shows that non-renewal of
>>> a contract can trigger unfair dismissal or redundancy obligations.
>> But doesnt when the operation decides that one employee
>> like you is less useful to the operation than another.

> They can't do that because I have worked there longer, which is the only
> measure of usefulness at my workplace.

Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>>>> You must be bitter about this subject because of perhaps being
>>>>>>>>> sacked in the past.
>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, never ever have been.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is suprising since you have been put in the Penalty Box on
>>>>>>> Whirlpool.
>>
>>>>>> That isnt an employer, fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is indication of your bad personality and that you are a pain
>>>>>>> in the arse.
>>
>>>>>> Nope, just that fuckwit had it in for me.
>>>>>> AND I never said that they can't do that, fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It shows you have a bad personality and would not be good to work
>>>>> with.
>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. I have never ever been sacked from any job.
>>
>>> All that proves is that the personality aspects of a person that you
>>> have been going on about are not relevant to productivity in a job.
>> Wrong, as always. That was in fact the reason that those who did
>> not have their contract renewed at my mate's work did not have
>> their contract renewed and they got to like that or lump it.

> If they had been replaced by someone else, then they could have
> challenged it.

And lost. It is perfectly legal to do that.

>>> So you have been wrong about that.
>> Nope, dope.
>>
>>>>> You said that you think I should be sacked based on my posts here.
>>
>>>> I never ever said anything of the kind.
>>
>>> You have been saying I should be sacked going by my posts here.
>> I never ever said anything of the kind.
>>
>
> You said this:
>
> "or even if they are a complete pain in the arse like you"

That says NOTHING about your posts here, fuckwit.

> Therefore you are saying I should be sacked going by the personality I
> exhibit on this newsgroup.

Wrong, as always.

>>> You think my posts indicate a problem with my personality
>> That is obvious to anyone.
>>
>>> and abilities which should cause me to be sacked.
>> Nope, replaced by someone better.
>>
>
> The other person is not better.

Wrong, as always.

>>> If that were true, then you would have been sacked going by yourposts
>>> on Whirlpool that led to you getting put in the Penalty Bin.
>> Nope, all I did that caused that was to say that someone else was
>> trolling.
>> Whirlpool doesn't allow anyone to say that.
>>
>
> That's rubbish.

Nope, read their T&Cs

> Heaps of people say that someone is a troll.

Thats why I felt I was free to say that, and discovered
that the T&Cs say that you can't. When I said that to
that arsehole who was out to get me, he said I had
never reported those others.

If you search on my name in whirlpool, you can see
that he said publicly that he was out to get me well
before I turned up again on whirlpool after I had
given up on them years earlier.

I had got his employer to fuck him over at his work more
than a decade earlier, nothing to do with whirlpool.

> You must have been abusive or trolled yourself.

Nope, my posts are still visible and can be read by anyone.

>>>>> I am saying you should have been sacked due to the way you behave
>>>>> on Whirlpool.
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you have never been sacked proves that your theory is
>>>>> false.
>>>> Wrong, as always. And it isnt a theory, it is a fact when a contract
>>>> is not renewed.
>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is important for "productivity", as you say it is,
>>>>
>>>>>> I never ever said anything even remotely like that.
>>>>
>>>>> See above.
>>>> Completely useless as always with your pig ignorant shit.
>>>>
>>>>>>> then you should have been sacked many times.
>>>>>> I have never been.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just know that the legislation says nothing even remotely
>>>>>>>> like what you claim and neither does that lawyer.

Max wrote:
==========
>
> Time served is the only way to determine usefulness at my workplace.
>

** Sounds like a prison inmate.

...... Phil