by frog
Okay, Whitcoulls and Borders were in trouble. So along comes white knight James Pascoe Group to save the day. All will be good. A successful capitalist rescues a failed one and saves most of the workers’ jobs. Big hugs all round, and business as usual.
But hang on! Part of the rescue deal involves an ultimatum to employees. They are being asked to sign away any entitlement to redundancy compensation, notice of termination of employment and any claims or grievances from their previous employer. If the administrator made workers redundant today, it would have to make a lieu-of-notice payment and redundancy payment, up to a cap of $18,600 per person.
James Pascoe Group could hire a worker for one week and make him or her redundant the following week with no redundancy compensation.
National Distribution Workers Union Secretary Robert Reid says:
Never in my 30 years of working as a trade unionist have I ever seen such a blatant ruse to force workers to sign out of their rights and entitlements in a business transfer situation.
James Pascoe Group shareholder Denham Shale responded to the claim they could hire a worker for one week and make him or her redundant the following week with no redundancy compensation:
Yeah, we could do that. But we’re not like that.
So if they are not like that, then what is the problem with carrying forward the redundancy provisions and notice requirements in their employment agreement?
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Tue, May 31st, 2011
Tags: Denham Shale, James Pascoe Group, Robert Reid, Whitcoulls
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
What a fantastic way to get off on the right foot and earn loyalty adn respect from your workers.
If this is what they are like, how long until the next Whitcoulls receivership?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
I expect tnat this provision will reduce the cost of the downsizing operation that will be happening soon.
Though the provision “any claims or grievances from their previous employer” might be considered reasonable, as the previous employer is no longer relevent.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
@dbuckley 8:20 PM
You mean “making the employees pay their contribution toward the investment” to keep their jobs at worse employment conditions?
Even though the employees didn’t contribute to the management failures of the previous employer.
As far as I am concerned, if you buy a business, you buy it on the basis of its existing contractual arrangements – including those relating to its employees. A company undertaking a business takeover can’t just refuse to pay a business creditor of the previous owner what was contractually agreed.
Why should employees be treated any different?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Ok, then, given the Normans have bought this dinosaur, let me ask this: There is going to be fallout from this “takeover”, beyond the fact that the chain must have been picked up at a bargain price; now the Normans have it, where should (or perhaps ‘can’) the cuts and losses fall?
And you cant have “the previous managers / owners” as a valid answer, because a line was drawn under them once the sale was agreed; their losses (which one has to think will be considerable) are crystalised.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Toad,
I don’t know when you were last involved in buying a business, but in the real world the most common purchase agreement is to buy the assets only.
Even if you buy a house you only buy the asset – you do not take over liability for the previous owner’s mortgage.
One reason for limiting purchases to the assets is because they can be identified and listed. Digging down to find all the liabilities of the existing owners could take months and you never know when you have covered all the bases. Too many Trusts etc. Once you start to include liabilities and other contracts in the purchase you are exposing yourself to years of litigation.
That is a high risk and is open ended. If the current employers do not sign the new contract they can claim their redundancy payments off the receiver and are usually placed high on the list.
Or they can join the new company. How long would you be prepared to take combing through every agreement that could expose you to liability? The Company would fold in the meantime.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Owen
You missed Toad’s point, methinks.
It is not hard to find what the firm’s contracts are with the employees, and those *should* be honoured by the new owner. There should be no need for a law for this, it is common decency.
Of course there could be exceptions where silly contracts destroy a firm, but they can be renegotiated in good faith.
These people from Pascoes are treating the employees worse than shop fittings!
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“These people from Pascoes are treating the employees worse than shop fittings!”
But the shop fittings are unlikely to bring a grievance claim, either agsinst the new or old owners…
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)