RBC FIRES ALL THEIR STAFF??

[sharkman121]

You can fire them if you are willing to pay the severance...

Short answer, yes, although the court will look at age , ability to work anywhere else etc etc when determining severance payments.

[pioneer]

LOL@the court

Dan, this is trinidad, all these laws and regulations is just for show...to say...eh we ha labor laws here

Employers all know how to work around it, especially defense lawyers will rip any attempt to shreds.

[sharkman121]

shows how little you know about labour laws and their implementation in TnT. You see how much companies getting rough up by Trade Unions? especially for failure to follow correct procedure. see it in industrial court all the time.

[pioneer]

You see it but what's the outcome?

The state especially is GUILTY of breaching these laws and "good practice" and get away with it because of minute technicalities. They hire people on "short term contracts", have them perform duties of permanent public servants minus any sort of benefits; be it in the form of sick leave or casual or gratuity. Matter of fact those workers aren't entitled to ANY leave. They keep them for 6 months, send home for a week minus pay then bring them back for another 6 months.

I personally know people on that system for 7+ years now, what labor law can help these people? Absolutely none, because they are not classified as a "public servant"?

[pioneer]

They do not make a full "year" technically because they are "sent home" then "rehired" to do the same job they were initially doing. so hence no gratuity. When they stay home it comes out their pay.

If those people make a scene, guess what happens to them?

[sharkman121]

yes that is true, contract labour is taking over permanent employment atm. Public servants may not like it but it makes sense managementwise. Breaking of service is a regular practice now.

[pioneer]

But I think that's exploitation, very unfair and definitely not a "best practice".

See how the law allows for exploitation, that's why I say the IRA is a big joke.

[nemisis]

You see it but what's the outcome?

The state especially is GUILTY of breaching these laws and "good practice" and get away with it because of minute technicalities. They hire people on "short term contracts", have them perform duties of permanent public servants minus any sort of benefits; be it in the form of sick leave or casual or gratuity. Matter of fact those workers aren't entitled to ANY leave. They keep them for 6 months, send home for a week minus pay then bring them back for another 6 months.

I personally know people on that system for 7+ years now, what labor law can help these people? Absolutely none, because they are not classified as a "public servant"?

this post so true i here rolling

[X2]

You can fire them if you are willing to pay the severance...

Short answer, yes, although the court will look at age , ability to work anywhere else etc etc when determining severance payments.

Any half decent HR department can easily figure out severance payments based on all factors. No need to 'wait' on the court ruling to know what your liquidation and wind up costs will be.

They do not make a full "year" technically because they are "sent home" then "rehired" to do the same job they were initially doing. so hence no gratuity. When they stay home it comes out their pay.

If those people make a scene, guess what happens to them?

If you only studying what the government does to people, then yes, this contract trick is all the rage. Private firms do not typically employ this tactic (for office work) as they are looking for more permanent, reliable staff. Government office work is not real work IMHO, so in the end, the citizens suffer as they are led to believe that they have skills that are actually employable in the private sector at the ridiculous government salaries they leave behind.

The labour court is probably the only real reliable enforcement of law left in TnT. Typically the private sector companies are the ones that suffer the brunt of the court's punishment as the employee is almost always the winner in the case... regardless of how ridiculous they may have acted or whatever they have done to get fired...the employee comes out shining. Firing a permanent staff member in TnT is like getting a divorce... painful, expensive and often drawn out.

[sharkman121]

firing a staff member is simple once the correct procedure is followed eg, verbal warning ..written warning..firing. Grounds for firing must be legitimate and not harsh and oppressive though.

[X2]

firing a staff member is simple once the correct procedure is followed eg, verbal warning ..written warning..firing. Grounds for firing must be legitimate and not harsh and oppressive though.

They teaching that in school ? It hardly ever goes that way... every dunder-head looking for a handout ends up in court looking for a win. The system is designed to 'tax' businesses for firing people. I've seen people with severance agreements still go back and sue the employer for wrongful dismissal (and WIN !).... it's something you pretty much need to accept when hiring as permanent...particularly when the organisation is medium or large in size.

Many younger job-seekers also don't care for or appreciate the value to benefits like pension matching, healthcare and the like... so with contact work, the cookie sort of crumbles evenly. Feels unethical to me but it's no wonder people want to use contracted employment.

[sharkman121]

This have nuttin to do with what dey teach me in school, this is what i see followed in Industrial court all the time... fuggeh that taxing ppl BS. i FED UP see companies who supposed to know better lose cases simply because procedural fairness was not followed.

Also contract employment is different from employers repeatedly breaking yr service, there are different laws in contract employment as well. The exploitation of a repeatedly broken service is a different matter all together.

[X2]

This have nutting to do with what dey teach me in school, this is what i see followed in Industrial court all the time... fugget that taxing ppl BS. i FED UP see companies who supposed to know better lose cases simply because procedural fairness was not followed.

Don't know what time you going to the court eh... I've seen multiple cases of procedure and documentation done to the letter yet a flat loss in court. I welcome business owners, HR and IR people to post up on this...

Also contract employment is different from employers repeatedly breaking yr service, there are different laws in contract employment as well. The exploitation or a repeatedly broken service is a different matter all together.

This is why private sector does not typically deal up in this behaviour.... but it's done by government departments like it's the 'in thing'. Great example to set for the rest of the country huh ?

Either way.... will RBC do it ? Only if it's a cost that can be recouped in years to come. Many people seem to go the 'online banking' route once available. If RBC doesn't want the business of the common man that still doesn't have a computer or smartphone... it just might happen. There's a lot of money in commercial and private banking

[sharkman121]

This have nutting to do with what dey teach me in school, this is what i see followed in Industrial court all the time... fugget that taxing ppl BS. i FED UP see companies who supposed to know better lose cases simply because procedural fairness was not followed.

Don't know what time you going to the court eh... I've seen multiple cases of procedure and documentation done to the letter yet a flat loss in court. I welcome business owners, HR and IR people to post up on this...

Not sure what to say here but they had to have lost for a reason. You saying there is a bias against the companies in these instances? Would appreciate responses from other hr & ir ppl as well.

[Chimera]

sooooo at the end of the day....this post have any truth to it?

RBC fire a set of people or not?

[tool-band]

sooooo at the end of the day....this post have any truth to it?

RBC fire a set of people or not?

no one was fired however applications for all mid -high management places where opened so if some one else in the branch is better suited to that particular desk then they had a chance to get there.if you where ousted from your desk you where simply moved to a different one while keeping your $ level.

[Bareback]

sooooo at the end of the day....this post have any truth to it?

RBC fire a set of people or not?

no one was fired however applications for all mid -high management places where opened so if some one else in the branch is better suited to that particular desk then they had a chance to get there.if you where ousted from your desk you where simply moved to a different one while keeping your $ level.

This may not end well.....................

[pete]

This have nutting to do with what dey teach me in school, this is what i see followed in Industrial court all the time... fugget that taxing ppl BS. i FED UP see companies who supposed to know better lose cases simply because procedural fairness was not followed.

Don't know what time you going to the court eh... I've seen multiple cases of procedure and documentation done to the letter yet a flat loss in court. I welcome business owners, HR and IR people to post up on this...

Not sure what to say here but they had to have lost for a reason. You saying there is a bias against the companies in these instances? Would appreciate responses from other hr & ir ppl as well.

From your experience, how many employers win cases vs how many employees as a percentage?

[sharkman121]

From my experience the worker has the edge however in each case I saw the fatal flaws or errors that were made which led to their loss. Sometimes its simple procedural flaws or unsubstantiated cases with no evidence or hearsay.

Sometimes you wonder what companies are even paying their lawyers or iro officers for if they come to court so unprepared or with such a weak case.

I also see that people react on emotion a lot with little solid backing.

[sharkman121]

Workers that do contest and win cases would be so mostly because of they are advised by their union on if their case has a legitimate chance if winning or not. T.u would hardly ever take a case where it is obvious that the worker is wrong, but if they see a solid case against the employer they would take it and hence usually win.

Having said that, lots of workers don't have solid cases though.

[pioneer]

X2 yuh hirin oh wha?

[X2]

X2 yuh hirin oh wha?

Only females and only on 2 week contracts hoss....

Must have 2 recognized degrees and must be down with sexual harassment on the regular.

[sharkman121]

Pios meet almost all dem criterion

[Twin Isle Cars n' Parts]

This is very interesting.

The opening statement is in fact incorrect, not all RBC's employees are bieng fired, but are actually being put in
a position to resign...
(I'll elaborate further in a later post)...

But I am in agreement with most of the other comments;

- Ppl fail to realise, it's Trinis working under Canadian expectations. I think the Canadians themselves didn't consider that during or b4 the actuall acquisition, rather than just come in here and wanna sheet up we culture...OR is it slavery days in a sense again?

- The Union is a waste of time, they lack foresite, or think with their foreskin even. Ah mean really, so the Union knws about the acquisition since how long, so let the new members full out their applications ommitting the Employer's name - 1 wouldn't be sure as to what the new name can be after the deal is sealed...daiz dey excuse for not comin into RBC as yet to aid employees, ALL d application forms hadda be redone...!!!

- RBC's technology is crap, their Staff mentality stinks, but at the same time, Staff are being treated like crap, expected 2 do 3 ppl wuk for 1 individual's pay, within ridiculous time frames. The "sponges" who sat on top during RBTT's reign, needs 2 get their selfish bam-bams up & out, give the younger ppl a chance
to move up, rather than frustrate themselves even more...
- The Industrial Court & BIR can be elusive to some very incriminating factors such as, imagine a huge bank like RBTT/RBC eh have a proper "Retirement Fund" for their employees...!!! Yuh tink it light?

- The list goes on, but that's your food 4 thought now...

[sharkman121]

- The Union is a waste of time, they lack foresite, or think with their foreskin even. Ah mean really, so the Union knws about the acquisition since how long, so let the new members full out their applications ommitting the Employer's name - 1 wouldn't be sure as to what the new name can be after the deal is sealed...daiz dey excuse for not comin into RBC as yet to aid employees, ALL d application forms hadda be redone...!!!

- The Industrial Court & BIR can be elusive to some very incriminating factors such as, imagine a huge bank like RBTT/RBC eh have a proper "Retirement Fund" for their employees...!!! Yuh tink it light? .

If this is true then that T. union really lacking. Why the need to fill out application forms? Under the Transfer of Undertakings Act, nothing should be changed really. Any change of ownership etc, the same trade union, recognized majority trade union is still the t.u. that doesnt change. Not sure if its Cabrera and BIGWU in this case.

However if you say that its the employees put in a position to resign thats a different spin on it all together. Do you mean that the employee will be getting paid off? if so then thats fine. However if you mean that the employees are being put in a position where conditions are so bad that they are being forced to resign on their own, then thats different. An employee may claim summary dismissal in such a case once the parameters are met an would get redress in court if it reaches so far.

I agree with you in that the union should not have to wait to come to the aid of the employees and the fact that they dont have a proper retirement fund. This is basic work which t.u. supposed to ensure for their workers earlyoclock!

[Twin Isle Cars n' Parts]

"Change of ownership" is in retrospect with the Bank itself,
from RBTT to RBC. Since 2007 that acquisition started, we're
in 2013...no union yet as I mentioned previously foresight
or foreskin...
If any1 says 2 me at this time that BIGWU was "paid-off", I would / could believe that...

As for the firing employees, you're totally right in all aspects, cept they're not & CANNOT be paid off properly if the crooks
don't have a proper Pension Fund available for Retiring or Resigning Staff...

[sharkman121]

A bit surprised at this lack of action by BIGWU. They negotiated a lovely package for Republic Bank if I remember correctly.

[teems1]

firing a staff member is simple once the correct procedure is followed eg, verbal warning ..written warning..firing. Grounds for firing must be legitimate and not harsh and oppressive though.

For persons, for example in IT, who have the ability to do change/manipulate production systems and data, can be fired and escorted from the building immediately.

[sharkman121]

It depends, certain actions warrant summary ( immediate dismissal) . Eg. Fighting, drug use, swearing, stealing etc. Its up to the companies policy.

However with a regular dismissal especially with certain positions where trust is an issue, keeping a worker there may result in potential damage and defamation to the company and the worker may be asked to leave immediately or escorted out.

[sharkman121]

More technicalities may arise if the worker is on staff as opposed to contract or even ojt. Questions have to be asked if it was wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal, summary dismissal, constructive dismissal etc etc. Its never as straight forward as it looks.