试工带来的劳资纠纷 -- 短期试工，免费，遭解雇，雇佣双方引发纠纷

我选择新西兰

May的点评：

英文先驱报对此案的报道，没有强调这个案子“试工”的特点。本案中的雇主以先试工为理由，让员工开始上班，在试工不满意之后（认为员工和丢失的现金有关），就以短信的方式开除了员工，并且没有支付工资。

案子先是在ERA审理，雇主败诉。 雇主认为短期试工，不必给员工支付工资，试工是“自愿的”。 ERA认为劳资关系成立，雇主应该支付工资，并为不公平解雇承担法律责任。

雇主不服，上诉至Employment Court，但再次败诉。Court为此案特别发了Decision of Note，特别强调了短期试工（“short work trial" ）劳资关系问题。

在此提醒雇主，如果想考察员工是否胜任岗位，可以用90天试用期的条款，但不要采纳所谓的临时试工的做法，一旦因为工资和解雇产生纠纷，法律对雇主的此类行为是不支持的。

Salad bar worker unjustifiably dismissed by text message


The Employment Court at Nelson has upheld a decision that found a salad bar worker was unjustifiably dismissed when she was sacked by text message after being accused of stealing on her second day on the job.

Chief Employment Court Judge Graeme Colgan upheld the Employment Relations Authority decision which awarded Amberleigh Howe-Thornley more than $6000 in compensation.

The ERA was told Ms Howe-Thornley applied for a job at Salad Bowl in Nelson after the company advertised for someone to operate a new mobile salad cart it was planning to open last August.

She was asked to come in to Salad Bowl's existing store a few days later.
At the end of her second day, company owner Randi Westphal found the till was $52.36 short - a larger variance than she had ever found before.

She concluded Ms Howe-Thornley had taken a $50 note which had been in the till earlier, and sent her a text message saying: "Hi Amber, no need to come into Salad Bowl tomorrow. We'll be in touch. Thx, Randi."
Ms Howe-Thornley thought little of the text because the new salad cart was not due to open until the following week.

But when she texted on opening day to ask what was happening, Ms Westphal responded: "Nothing. Please return T-shirt and feel free to get another job."

Ms Howe-Thornley asked if she would be getting paid for her two days of work, but received the response: "Money missing from till is reason you don't have a job!"

When Ms Howe-Thornley protested she had "absolutely no idea" what she was talking about, Ms Westphal responded: "Goodbye."

Before the ERA, Ms Westphal denied ever offering Ms Howe-Thornley a job, saying she had asked her only to come in for a three-hour trial to see if she was suitable.

But the authority found Ms Howe-Thornley was an employee because she had been preparing salads and serving customers.
It noted Ms Westphal's own evidence that she would have paid Ms Howe-Thornley for her work until she found the money missing.

The authority also found there was no evidence to support the allegation of theft, and the decision to dismiss Ms Howe-Thornley was unjustified.
Judge Colgan upheld the ERA's original compensation sum of $6282 and ruled Ms Howe-Thornley was entitled to legal representation costs.
Despite the short duration of Ms Howe-Thornley's employment at the Salad Bowl, the compensation figure of $5000 for distress and humiliation was justified, he said.
The remaining amount was for unpaid wages and compensation for lost wages for the six-week period it took Ms Howe-Thornley to find another job.
"Being stigmatised as a thief from one's employer, and particularly in the absence of both an opportunity to refute that allegation and of the sort of evidence supporting it that would now be expected, was particularly damaging to Ms Howe-Thornley.
"Nothing seen or heard by me would persuade me that the authority's award of $5000 was so excessive that I would be prepared to interfere with it."

我选择新西兰

此案中，雇员的工作时间加起来也只有一天左右，本身不是个大案子。但连续两次败诉，雇主为此支付的法律费用，一定远远大于案件涉及的赔偿费用了。

从雇用双方的角度，都应该尽量避免劳资纠纷的产生。一旦有纠纷，要尽早通过调解的方式解决 （Mediation）。

我选择新西兰

免费试工现象在华人社区很普遍，这种做法实际上给雇主带来的法律风险是很大的，一旦员工的法律意识提高，很多公司会因为试工带来的解雇和工资纠纷而面临法律挑战。

建议雇主依照正规的雇佣程序办事，这样既是对员工权益的尊重，也避免为公司带来不必要的损失，一举两得的事情，不要贪小而失大。

我选择新西兰

顶上去，宣传一下劳动法。

晓青

请问事先说好试工一天，也付了工资，但发觉不合适，不聘用，这样做合法吗？

我选择新西兰

晓青 发表于 2013-9-17 20:39
请问事先说好试工一天，也付了工资，但发觉不合适，不聘用，这样做合法吗？

如果双方不产生纠纷就无所谓，但如果想避免法律风险，一定要有书面的合同。因为口头的试用期是不受法律保护的。

我选择新西兰

试工可以，但要合法。

这个案子给雇主一个必要的警示。

justiny520

楼主辛苦了 赞一个

tom_shen

谢谢LZ分享，了解了。

我选择新西兰

tom_shen 发表于 2014-8-5 16:38
谢谢LZ分享，了解了。

合法的试用期不会产生劳资纠纷，但如果是不符合法律要求的做法而导致纠纷产生，雇佣上方都应该了解彼此的法律权力和责任。

chaocc

请问，试工怎么定义？ 如果只是口头承诺试工，但是又没有任何书面合同和协议呢？

我选择新西兰

雇主可以合法地使用试用期，最长不超过90天。试工/试用期，是要发工资的。
只要试工了，就产生正式的劳资关系，不可以对员工呼之即来，挥之即去。如果雇主不满意想解雇员工，而又没有有效的90天试用期，那么解雇的理由和程序就要经得住法律的挑战，否则很容易让双方产生纠纷。

建议想“试工”的雇主，一定要和员工签订正式的劳动合同，明确90天试用期，同时支付员工合理合法的工资。

我选择新西兰

chaocc 发表于 2014-8-21 18:52
请问，试工怎么定义？ 如果只是口头承诺试工，但是又没有任何书面合同和协议呢？

如果对上面的解释还有疑惑，请提出更具体的问题。