Farrar on Industrial Law, Ctd

David Farrar’s post yesterday about the Affco dispute had a hedge:

Assuming it has been correctly reported

I dealt with this assumption earlier. Farrar then went on to say:

then I have to say the union has a very reasonable case here. ?An irreconciliable differences clause is not reasonably standard. The only place I knew which has them is Parliament, because it is impossible for an MPs office to function if the MP doesn?t have total trust in their staffer/s. But this clause probably wouldn?t even stand up in court, which is why there is always a payout of three or more months with it, if triggered. And often, another job found for the staffer with another MP.

That clause basically does ask meat workers to surrender their employment rights, and allow AFFCO to fire them for no substantive reason. Now I?m in favour of trial periods where you can do that as it is always a risk how a new employee works out. But I would not sign a contract like that if I worked at AFFCO.

An odd call when the about half the AFFCO work force have signed a contract with this clause. The tip line is consistently informing me that AFFCO car parks are filling and strikers pickets reducing, so it can’t be that bad a clause or AFFCO would have no staff.