Oh for F*cks Sake!

If I was employing a nanny to look after my kids I’d want them spoken to properly, not sworn at, and I’d want her to drive safely…but the ERA thinks that is ok to do both, swear at children, and drive unsafely.

The irony here is that it appears ok to swear at kids, but you still can’t smack them.

A nanny who was fired after the five children she looked after claimed she swore in front of them and drove too fast has been awarded almost $6000 for unfair dismissal.

In an Employment Relations Authority ruling, member Michael Loftus sided with Kate Fisher, who was dismissed in June 2011 by the children’s mother Carrie O’Brien. 

She had been working as a casual nanny on an “when-required” basis for Ms O’Brien but claimed it was a committed, ongoing arrangement – a point Ms O’Brien disputed.

Ms Fisher worked three or four afternoons a week for the Wanaka family and later took up cleaning duties to earn more money.

However, problems started when the children started complaining “about the way Ms Fisher drove and alleging she swore in their presence”, said the ERA finding.

Ms Fisher was unfairly dismissed because her employer didn’t discuss the issues with her and there was no attempt to find out what happened or why the decision to dismiss was made, Mr Loftus found.

He ordered Ms O’Brien to pay Ms Fisher $1779 in lost wages and $4000 as compensation for humiliation and hurt feelings.

Oh the poor wee thing..hurty feelings…for being sacked…wonder how the family can claim for emotional distress caused by a shouty tart masquerading as a nanny?


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Michael

    They should have talked to her. I am all for giving dick heads the flick, but if you dont even talk to her, then how would you know what is going on or correcting a situation.

    The children CLAIMED she swore and was speeding.Show me a kid that’s perception is 100% balanced? Adults don’t even have a balanced perception. Firing the nanny cuz the kids “claimed” something and didn’t talk to her is pretty lame.

    Kids are shits, I know, I have two… I was a shit as a kid. Maybe the kids just didn’t like the nanny and told “stories”

    • Stuff that. If you have kids you stand up for them. If the kids don’t like the nanny, the nanny walks. And when it comes to the kids I don’t waste my time “correcting the situation”. $6000 well spent I’d say. But then I’ve got five kids and not a lot of time for fuckwits.

      • Michael

        I stand up for my kids. I am also the first to acknowledge when they are shits and any parent that doesn’t is setting their kids up for failure IMHO.

        You have formed a stance that the nanny is at fault with out rebuttal based on a kids claim. You may not have time for fuck wits, but do you not have time for the truth or facts or due diligence?

        Kids are not perfect gems and saying the nanny is at fault cuz the kids “claimed” something is immensely short sighted. You are teaching the kids that saying stuff gets a favorable outcome for them.

        A good parent, in my opinion, would talk to the nanny at the very least to confirm the claim, if it’s truth do as you please, if it’s not then you have to set it right with the kids. If you act on the kids claim with out making a slight effort to confirm the facts, you have made a great example to your kids on how you can spin a situation in your favor and that they have a future in Labour ;)

        When I remarried and my kids split their time between my house and their mothers, it took a long time for me to get use to my new wife, being a mother to my kids, especially when it came to discipline. It’s not easy to allow someone else raise your own kids, but you have to try and you HAVE to see past the bullshit your kids WILL spin.

        Kids are the best manipulators of the heart strings and they know it and parents buy it all the time, I know I still do.

        • A nanny is employed to keep the kids happy. Massive fail on the part of the potty mouth law breaker.

          And of course I teach my kids how to say stuff to get a favourable outcome for them. That’s how the adult world works.

          I teach them a junior version of how the adult world works so they don’t end up being the piece of shit that other people walk. on.

          Finlally, my job is to get the kids to adulthood employable and alive and crying a river for unemployable randoms doesn’t feature in the job description.

          • ratesarerevolting

            Kids can tend to exaggerate, just ask Peter Ellis

          • Michael

            ” the potty mouth law breaker.” You continue to pass judgement based on hearsay. Which is WHY the nanny was compensated.

            Nanny is employed to keep kids happy? Holy crap, I can’t keep mine happy.

            You are in a bit of a la la and I feel for your kids, you are setting them up for failure. Manipulation is not a key success tool for life.

          • What on earth are you talking about? Heresay? It plainly says the mum and the babysitter had a conflict? The babysitter gets to fuck off. Heck if a babysitter looks at me the wrong way they get the DCM. It’s not a proper job and you communists aren’t welcome to tell me how to run my family.

          • Michael

            Kiss you kids with that mouth?

            Hardly a commie for thinking that an employee has a right to defend their actions.

            Did you even read the article??

            “Ms Fisher was unfairly dismissed because her employer didn’t discuss the issues with her and there was no attempt to find out what happened or why the decision to dismiss was made”

            There was no attempt made to confirm what happened. That is not fair.

            If she did do it, then fine, give her the flick, but you can’t act on hearsay

          • Michael

            Oh “It’s not a proper job” at least she is working.

        • unsol

          I agree with pretty much everything you have said, they only thing is that she swore at the kids – and doesnt appear to have disputed it.

          That to me is enough to see her packing her bags.

          But the bigger issue is how did this even get to the ERA when she is but a casual worker? Casual is usually WT so a contractor for tax purposes that usually precludes all ERA rights & obligations as working on an as needed basis.

          • Michael

            The nanny did deny the claims of swearing. I think it was quoted in the stuff article.

            So despite denying the kids claims, she was still sacked.

  • StupidDisqus

    which part of “I’m the employer, its my f*cking money” doesn’t the “workers “”rights”” tribunal” get?

    We don’t need a workers right’s tribunal – we need an employer’s rights law. In this case the shouty tart should be fined say $20,000 for the emotional harm and distress caused to the family, and another $10,000 for the costs for finding a new Nanny. Geez.

    • Michael

      The “shouty tart” was fired based on the kids claim..

      Would you be pro “employer’s right law” if you lost you job, without defense, cuz some minors “said so” ??

      • Liberty

        “The “shouty tart” was fired based on the kids claim”

        Peter Ellis got 10 years based on the kids claim.

        With the deconstruction of Christchurch have they found the dungeons?

        • Michael

          Yup and there is plenty of calls about how the kids claims were collected and presented.

          Also, Peter was given a chance to voice his side, unlike the nanny.

  • MarkF

    Mommies, probably spoiled, little prince and princesses didn’t like the nanny so they told stories,is the most likely explanation to me………..

    • Stuarts.burgers

      My first reaction as well. Nasty Nanny made me tidy up let’s get Mummy to sack her

  • MarkF


    “which part of “I’m the employer, its my f*cking money” doesn’t the “workers “”rights”” tribunal” get?”

    The part where you don’t even try to figure out what happened and act unilaterally. The term that should be used is natural justice, a concept seeming lost on you. If it was you on the receiving end of something that was patently unjust I bet you “10bob to a knob of goat shit” you would’nt just shrug your shoulders and walk away.

    • Oh fuck off. She was a babysitter and and the end of the day it isn’t a proper employment situation. This is just more proof that the unions are ruining the country when the can get in the way of a parent’s rights. Thank God I live in the land of the free.

      • MarkF

        What crawled up your ass and died? As I said I bet if you were shafted by somebody for something you didn’t do on the hearsay evidence of others you wouldn’t just roll over and go away. This has nothing to do with unions! Was the nanny unionized, nowhere was that said. Argue the issue, don’t flavour it with your own biases and prejudices.

        • I don’t know what crawled up my arse and died. Any other personal questions?

          • MarkF

            Once again going off half-cocked (that’s a military term FYI). That comment was nothing personal, maybe you need to acquaint yourself with it’s Urban meaning. But yet again you don’t debate the issue just fire off at the commentators.

  • cows4me

    It’s a bit rich calling the nanny out, as usual a story that would have two sides.
    “Ms’, FFS, O ‘Brien could be a high falutin stuck up mole who is to lazy to look after her offspring, five of the critters but moans at the drop of a hat at something she perceives as wrong. So the kids heard some swear words, shit the kids know more swear words today then I’ll ever learn. She should have followed the laws, every other poor bugger in business has to.

    • AnonWgtn

      I assume that Ms O”Brien is American – that in itself expalins a lot, and the kids have never heard swear words- Bullshit – it’s part of everyday American language.
      Usual America children I expect – spoilt to …………..get their own way, and of course being American always right.

      • Fuck yeah. Another great thing about living in the land of the free.

      • Michael

        Never assume when only one side of the story has been heard.

  • blokeintakapuna

    I had an employee I had to sack after 6 month’s of continuous training and coaching, where he couldn’t meet minimum standards we expect as a Professional Services entity delivering Professional Services to other Professional Services entities.

    Against a Restraint of Trade clause and client/staff poaching clauses in his employment agreement, within 2 weeks of his dismissal he had set-up a Ltd company in direct competition to my business, attempted to poach my staff and clients…
    whilst at the same time, he pursued a PG claim in the ERA through a “no win, no
    pay” ambulance chaser lawyer.

    He didn’t win, I won “costs of $750” but because of a technicality in the wording
    of his final written warning – given because he again attempted to claim $6K in
    commissions he wasn’t entitled to, with this 2nd blatant breach of process where he had already received two other prior warnings about, but because of this wording technicality it was deemed his dismissal was “procedurally unfair” – regardless of the actual procedure – and as a result of this “unfair dismissal” he should be awarded $6000 for “hurt & humiliation” because even though he had illegally set up a directly competing business. Because he hadn’t earned any money from his new business, my business should pay him for “lost wages, hurt and humiliation” because he didn’t / couldn’t earn a living… which was one of the reasons he was sacked for in the first place!

    WTF? Where is natural justice?

    This ERA process cost in excess of $21K in legal fees alone defending my SME and the families we feed, plus my time, effort, stress, lost opportunity costs, worry and outright victimisation by the State because under the Labour regime, my business and I were interpreted as “nasty capitalists” and needed to be legally punished through the ERA process.

    As a result, I give the Labour Party and their union flunkies a big “Fuck you!” and will now only ever hire someone as a contractor, contracting their Ltd company to mine from now on – hence avoiding all the minefields deliberately placed in an employers way by the Labour government as a sop to their union cohorts as another means to extort and extract further monies from employers.

    National need to sort this unbalanced, biased legislation, heavily slanted against
    employers by philosophically opposed socialists to fit their wonky ideas on how
    the world should work. Fix that – and more SME’s will employ more people.

    Today; there’s still just too much risk and cost trying to defend your SME – when just yesterday you have the likes of fraudsters lying on their CV… and it still costs the employer to be rid of the inept liers…. and it’s 50% the fault of the employer?

    • unsol

      To be fair I am sure there are plenty of cases where the employees get shafted too but in this case, the unfairness was totally yours.

      It is annoying & morally repugnant that the Labour govt made it so difficult to get rid of stupid people

  • kehua

    Hey Cam, I know this `nanny` and if she swore at the kids , I `ll guarrantee they needed it swearing at, she probaly should have kicked them right up their spoiled little bottoms. As for being `a poor wee thing with hurty feelings` if you were ever fortunate enough to go chase a Red or two with this nanny you would probably be the hurty feeling one.

    • Gee you communist kiddy haters are out in force today. If you’re unemployed you’re probably better off posting at The Standard. Btw.

      • Agent BallSack

        Christ Monique, on the rag are ya?

        • Yes. Any other personal questions you want answered ?

      • kehua

        With a potty mouth like you have lady, I wouldn`t want my kids within cooee of you and they are probably about your age.

        • unsol

          More like she wouldnt want you around her kids since you’re so inclined to make wild assumptions; potty mouthing on a blog is in no way indicative of whether one swears at their kids. Big difference. It’s called modifying your approach to suit your audience.

    • Random66

      She chose the wrong vocation if her thinking is along similar lines as yours. No children ‘need’ swearing at. Hell, next you’ll be saying they deserved the bash as well – oh that’s right you did when you said they should have been kicked. While I appreciate there are two sides to every story, three if you count the truth, I fundamentally support the right of a parent to be able to choose who does and does not care for their children. I personally would remove a nanny for no better reason than I don’t ‘feel’ right about them. Of note we did use a nanny in our children’s younger years and I still consider her a friend today. It would seem these days you need your lawyer to look over any and every agreement you may enter into (including your babysitting arrangement) because it’s next to impossible to get out of them.

      • unsol

        Inferring swearing at or around kids is on par with physical abuse is a massive leap even by your standards Random666.

        • Random66

          I never said that. I responded to two parts of his comment. 1. the swearing, 2. the kicking. They were separate issues.

      • kehua

        5 children from 2 separate families, 3 belong to the woman employer plus 2 from a friends family, can you get the picture, `lets take the piss out of her today`. I do not know what was said, but having a lot to do with today`s children I imagine it was pretty colourful language that they were using in a skiting, antagonistic way. Whatever, there are correct procedures to go through on such situations, not Union type procedures, just common decency and respect would require a face to face situation to my way of thinking. Random , I can assure you I have never ever bashed a child, but have to admit to feeding more than a few `nannies` to the dogs.

        • unsol

          So they were sharing a nanny.

          Still doesnt give her any right to sweat at or around the kids – she is the adult & is always in charge no matter what the kids think they can get away with.

          Kids need adults so leverage is only one small thought away.

          You dont ever need to swear at kids & doing so means you lose all credibility as they know they have, they know you are pissed & struggling.

          • Michael

            She denied swearing or is that a point that’s inconvenient?

          • unsol

            I just replied to you above. Did she? I missed that.

            Well if she hasnt admitted it & the parents only have the word of the kids to go on without supporting evidence then I fail to see what the fuss is about if she was an employee.

            But she wasnt – the whole thing should be been deemed irrelevant as she was a casual worker.

          • Michael

            ERA felt different about the “casual” nature of her employment. I don’t know much about employment law, so not going comment on their judgement, other than they must have had reasonable grounds to treat it as if she was an employee.

            If the ERA acted outside it’s remit, then any lawyer would be able to over turn it.

            But either way, the nanny is getting a raw deal in my opinion.

    • unsol

      No no no NO. Irrespective of what the children are like, she has an obligation to remain professional.

      Nannies – outside of groups like Porse & Barnados Kidstart, are usually used by well off parents who choose to continue working, so it is almost a given that the kids may on occasion be spoilt little shits. If she cant handle this then she clearly she is in the wrong job.

      And since you know her – tell her to learn to change her response according to her audience as swearing at and around children is never Ok.

      And while you are at it, tell her to use some of ‘winnings’ to learn out to drive properly; kids know when you go too fast & they can certainly tell an erratic driver from a good one

  • unsol

    Casual nanny – how did the ERA even get to have a say? The nanny was self employed and was on a need only contract with the parents. So formal warnings etc are irrelevant as the parents are within their rights to tell the nanny to go jump if she no longer meets their requirements or is surplus to their requirements.

    if she was permanently employed then I agree she would have a case re the verbal & written warnings etc, but I would expect that by merely being casual her rights were precluded from such conditions.

    If not, well we all know who is to blame here….Ms Dalziel & her 2006 amendment…

  • Steve (North Shore)

    Quite obvious these kids formed their own Union, and used bullshit to get rid of a Caregiver who made some rules they didn’t like. What will the little shits be like when they are 18+ ?

  • http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2013/01/i-fired-babysitter-by-text-and-didnt.html

    How I fired some babysitters by text and didn’t have to pay compo.