I am curious if others have experienced what my husband just went through. He was a Construction Supervisor with a large project builder in WA, he had asked for payrises as he was performing very well in his role and was told he was at the maximum they could pay.

A competitor project builder offered him a job with lot's more money so my husband decided to resign from his current job and accept the new one, based on the increased salary.

When he gave his written (very diplomatic & polite) notice of resignation the two managers exploded with verbal abuse. He was told to hand over his phone and work car keys immediately and to find his own way home (50 km's away in a different town). He was not allowed to use the phone or anything.

They rang and abused his new employer for poaching him. We then found out two days later they tried to poach another competitor's supervisor (but that's another story - in a small town we know everyone and hear everything).

He had a diary that he used for his work (supplied by the employer) and they tore all pages out that had any writing on it. This included personal information such as birthdates and phone numbers of family etc.

He is owed about $1000 in bonus money that they said he will now not get and with his final pay they deducted a bonus that was paid on past performance two months earlier.

We had anticipated they would ask him to cease work immediately but the other behaviour was and is quite a shock. We are seeking help through the Workplace Ombudsman for help with repayment of the bonus money they deducted from his pay.

Has anyone else experienced similar sort of behaviour or treatment on resigning and maybe have any ideas of how we can lodge some sort of complaint in his treatment so others do not have to experience the same thing.

It sounds like you guys are just better off being rid of them. People like that are habitual in their actions and it sounds like you guys aren't the first. I think unless you absolutely need the money I'd just report them to whoever you need to and move on to better things. It will only continue to stress you.

Having said that, someone needs to make an example of them so they don't keep doing it. Problem is, is it worth it for you guys in the long run? (what might the consequences be?), and will it really change who they are as people and employers?.

I just got burnt by an employer. His practises were bordering on criminally neglectful. Long story, but I managed to cut off his supply of potential employees. HE was hiring off a friend of mine, which is how I came across him. There's alot more to the story but long story short; I was better off just cutting my loses.

Word of mouth in a small town is like a bush fire.

hi all,

yes its always smart to get legal advice, and generally
in all circumstances to check first re jobs, and pay

http://www.wo.gov.au/asp/index.asp

knowledge is power

armed with the knowledge
one can make better choices

and always vote, always.....

JHH

It is not all that unusual, legal help for sure taking back a bonus for work already done is illegal.
The other bonus may not be paid ask an expert but it is in doubt.
One of south east Asia's biggest, once Australian owned construction firms acts like this on one site every day.
A worker known to be top draw was asked to take on a formans job.
He said look I want to be honest with you, in about 3 months I am leaving to take up another offer.
He was escorted off the job instantly and abused.
From valued worker to evil in seconds!

Well....unless it is the fact of being in a small town that enabled the former employer to know who the new one is,... I'd sure not be telling my old one who I'm going to.

I'd just explain..

1/ I've worked hard and well.
2/ I've requested a better deal and I think I'm worth it.
3/ You disagree on that issue (2) so... I have elected to resign.

the end.

DSBCK

Is your husband a member of a union?

Hi DSBCK

I'm unfamiliar with the Workplace Ombudsman's role or if he is attached to the same department, however, have you sought advice from the:

Department of Consumer and Employment Protection?

I believe they're quite helpful and will act reasonably promptly on your behalf.

Who can you trust in a small town? As you said - everyone knows everything... I'm afraid I'd be heading off to a larger city - where they don't know each other for legal advice. I believe that the first visit is usually free.

It would be good to know what your options are in any case. Or you can simply let it go - and move on. The choice is yours of course. But if it's going to bother you long term - at least find out what your choices are.

Personally - I'd be wanting my entitlements - and I'd want to warn others about these people.

Dear DSBCK,

I've been thinking about your situation. Something has just occurred to me... Did your husband resign in the middle of the job ?
Because I imagine that would greatly affect the project's schedules, supervision, and completion of the job on time.

I imagine that to find a replacement supervisor at short notice - would not be an easy task - particularly in the middle of a project.
Also - penalty rates would apply if the job's not completed on time.
(Minimum of $1,000 a day, a friend told me). Of course it would have been possibly cheaper for them to give your husband a raise then to get stuck with the penalty rates. But if they're working to a tight budget, perhaps they couldn't afford to do it.

Perhaps your husband should have stayed until at least, the job was completed - he may not have had the problems he's having now.
Just a thought...

Unfortunately we are not part of Union, they would have been quite handy in this situation.

My husband's job always had about 30 homes at various stages on the go, he gave his required notice and they choose to send him packing the same day and not work the remaining two weeks.

If they are hit with penalties for completing the homes late they will be of no fault than their own as all homes were well ahead of schedule and they didn't allow for any transition time by showing him the door.

We agree they should have just paid him what he was worth as they will now need to pay more to get someone else to do the job anyway. Tough lesson for their company which is why I guess they want to take it out on us financially.

Some very thought provoking comments so far, thanks for all your input.

Builders in my region of WA refuse to include a penalty clause in contracts for home buildings so its tough titties for the owners who need to prudently add several months to the estimated time given by the builder for completion dates.

That's the reality.

DSBCK

Despite those who say there's no place for unions today, unions offer insurance against unfair dismissal and unfair treatment on the job. I cringe when I hear that a badly-treated worker is not a member of a union. If only...you hadn't let you insurance policy run out.

I'd be talking to a lawyer if I were your husband. I think he's been dudded.

Good luck!

DSBCK,

There may exist another dimension to the employer's response to your husband's resignation/instant dismissal. You report that your husband's former employer destroyed his Construction Supervisor's diary by tearing out all pages with writing on them.

I suspect the employer has committed a most serious offence in so doing.

I am not sure what the law requires in WA, but a Construction Supervisor's diary normally has a special status as a required record that must be kept: in all probability there was a legal obligation that rested upon your husband to actually keep such a diary (which, by your account, he did), together with a corresponding legal obligation upon his employer to preserve such a record. (That is the underlying reason why the actual diary would have been provided by the employer in the first case.)

It may be that your husband should seek advice as to how to proceed in reporting this destruction of a statutorily required record. It may even be important for the preservation of your husband's reputation as a construction supervisor that he should himself report to the regulatory authority the destruction of this record. The seemingly improper seizure of his personal information in the process may be a separate issue.

The reported behaviour of the two managers in responding to a resignation with personal abuse is a hallmark of the corporate psychopath. They may have other things to hide of which your husband knew nothing, but which his resignation one way or another threatened to expose.

I wonder whether an audit, whether conducted by a regulatory authority, or by the company's own auditors, might not reveal managerial improprieties of the nature of embezzelment? For example, a claiming by such middle managment to its own financial department of having made the payment of bonuses or other termination obligations in respect of a resignation of an employee, but in reality having perverted such payments to their own private advantage.

A regulatory compliance audit would likely end up costing this company dearly. They would have brought it upon themselves.

DSBCK,

Been thinking further about the scenario you have described as the response to your husband's resignation.

He may have been set up by the two managers in question. It may have all along been his Construction Supervisor's Diary that they wanted to get their hands on. The diary he was obliged to keep, and in all good faith did keep by your account, may have contained evidence of activities or decisions that may have been in some way embarrassing or incriminating in respect to at least those two 'managers', if not more widely of the company for which they work.

The better-paying job offer from another employer may even have been orchestrated by these two in order to get rid of your husband as a potential witness to something that had been going on in or around that company's operations. Your husband may not have even realized he had been a witness to anything, but those two may have perceived him as a potential threat if, in their estimation, some proverbial was about to hit some fan somewhere.

It is interesting that the two of them were there together when your husband's (polite) letter of resignation was handed in. Two mens' word against one, and all that. They knew, or at least strongly suspected, what was coming, and seemingly had already agreed upon a plan of action.

I guess the proof of this particular speculative pudding will reside in whether the better job offer really materializes or lasts.

Subject to taking your own legal or other advice as to how to proceed in this matter, a discreet and appropriately witnessed meeting with the auditors of your husband's former employing company may ultimately produce surprising results. It should not be expected to result (at least in the short term) in payment of your husband's proper termination entitlements, but may sheet home responsibility for improper managerial conduct right where it belongs.

Something else may be going on in or around this company's operations, something improper, or even criminal.

Gratitude may eventually be expressed!

AS I POSTED ELSEWHERE;
IF I WERE TO CHALLENGE THE IR LAWS I WOULD SUCCEED, AS I DID WITH THE ELECTION ISSUE ON 19 JULY 2006 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA THAT VOTING IS CONSTITUTIONALLY NOT PERMITTED TO BE COMPULSORY.
AS A "CONSTITUTIONALIST" I KNOW WHAT THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA CONCEALED FROM ITS IR JUDGMENT OF 14-11-2006!
.
FOR EXAMPLE;
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON.-
The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
And
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
And
Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place where the contract was made.
And
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
And
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in course of their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to legislate in respect of the subject-matter of them, it can do so.
.
AND, THERE IS A LOT MORE TO THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IR LAWS!
.
PERHAPS YOUR HUSBAND SIMPLY SHOULD PURSUE STATE IR LAWS STILL GOVERNING?