Unfair Retrenchment???

[78wendy78]

Thanks. I get that. All of the incidents aside, my point is that it is unethical, unprofessional, dishonest and cunning to claim to want to retrench a person for financial reasons / because their position has become redundant when, in actual fact, you have been wanting to / trying to get rid of them for other reasons.

[HR Solutions]

I think what Dave has said is correct. From the sound of things there has been quite a lot of "friction" in the office. You look at it one way and they look at it another way. They really are entitled to do what they want within the laws. Nothing is unethical and unprofessional from what I can see. to be quite honest a few things that you have described that you did would have pissed me off as well - Perhaps you don't see it...

[Justloadit]

Yep, and he who controls the money is entitled to do what he wants with it.
It may seem unethical to you, but to the organization, you are an obstacle, and they will push what ever manner they can with in the law to achieve it.

Sometimes it is better to find another place where you are happy than a place in which you dread going to everyday. This dread will become a huge psychological problem in your life, and will affect your health. The question now becomes, is it worthwhile for you to accept these conditions?

[78wendy78]

Thank you for the replies. This will be my last post.

I am working on finding a happy place but unfortunately it doesn't happen overnight and, until then, I need to put food on the table.

If I understand correctly the conclusion is:-
If an employee pisses an employer off, but the employer can find no legal ground (in terms of the Labour Relations Act) on which to dismiss (fire) an employee, the employer may claim (irrespective of whether it is actually the true state of affairs) that the employee's position has become redundant or that the employer is facing financial difficulty and retrench the employee.

[Dave A]

my point is that it is unethical, unprofessional, dishonest and cunning to claim to want to retrench a person for financial reasons / because their position has become redundant when, in actual fact, you have been wanting to / trying the real purpose is to get rid of them for other reasons.

Wendy, (subject to my little tweak) I'm happy to agree with you 100%. The problem is if they do things by the book from a process point of view, and you're going to run a "the real reason is they wanted to get rid of me" bus down the CCMA/Labour Legislation route to get redress, you're going to have to prove that on balance of probabilities (as minimum) that was indeed their motive.

That is likely to be a task a lot easier said than done.

It seems you're convinced they want to get rid of you. On one level I'm concerned that this is an assumption that is affecting your assessment of the situation of the company and have you barking up the wrong tree.

At another level though - assuming you are right, perhaps your better option is to figure out why they are keen to see you out the door and fix why that would be.

[Justloadit]

It is a cruel world out there.
The way to survive is to find something to do that does not need an employer, or make you indispensable.
Being self employed is no easier either, your boss (customer) is not of the forgiving kind either, and expects the best service, 24/7 and no cost.

[HR Solutions]

perhaps you are rubbing people up the wrong way ....

[Greig Whitton]

The problem is if they do things by the book from a process point of view, and you're going to run a "the real reason is they wanted to get rid of me" bus down the CCMA/Labour Legislation route to get redress, you're going to have to prove that on balance of probabilities (as minimum) that was indeed their motive.

If the employer was genuinely conniving to get OP out, then there is a good chance that they didn't do things entirely by the book. For example, was a notice of intention to retrench correctly issued? Were all employees consulted? Were reasonable alternatives to retrenchment (e.g. short time) considered? How were employees selected for retrenchment?

If the employer did attend to all of these responsibilities correctly, then Dave is correct: proving their "real intention" becomes very tricky.