Burger Fuel store picketed

Email
Print

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 6:21p.m.

Trade unionists show solidarity outside an Auckland Burger Fuel

Trade unionists show solidarity outside an Auckland Burger Fuel

By Melissa Davies

The fat was in the fire when trade unionists turned up at an Auckland Burger Fuel outlet to support a sacked employee.

Joanne Bartlett was fired on the 89th day of her 90-day probationary period.

“They said they just didn't consider me to be someone who would be in the fast food industry for a long time,” says Bartlett.

Her former boss says she never said that.

“I didn't have to give her a reason and I'm not going to discuss that now,” Linda Garibobic, Burger Fuel Franchisee told 3 News.

but union members did want to discuss it and turned up outside the Mission Bay store.

Burger Fuel's Chief Executive, Joseph Roberts, was there to meet them.

“The first thing is .we employ hundreds of people through the burger fuel system - 700 or so, alright,” Mr Roberts told picketers. “It is our right as an employer to trial people, to test people.”

Bartlett says she may have been fired because she asked for a second paid ten minute break, but Burger Fuel denies this.

The Unite union has set up what's called the utu squad. They say their aim is to name and shame companies they deem to be bad employers.

This is their first outing but they promise there will be many more.

And Burger Fuel says there are likely to be more dismissals within the ninety day probationary period for as long as they're entitled to by law.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

23 Aug 2010 04:07p.m.

Unfairly sacked wrote:

I was unfairly sacked at the end of my 90 day trial. The only reason I was given was that I had not done a good enough job (which was totally not true). I did a great job and was never late or sick. Now I'm having to find another job to provide for myself and my family. The 90 day law gives way too much power to employers, and any one who thinks otherwise is either an employer or has never been in the situation of being sacked unfairly.

22 Aug 2010 01:32p.m.

Chris R wrote:

Hi Steve, It sounds like you've got a problem manager there that your former employee is trying to inforn you of. Chris R

22 Aug 2010 10:43a.m.

JD wrote:

If you honestly believe that this new legislation will disadvantage about 450,000 workers who start or change or jobs each year, as according to the union scare mongering machine, then you are truly lacking in even the most basic of intelligence and would be well suited to be part of the union crowd. If you think every employer is going to spend thousands of dollars, recruiting, hiring and training new staff, then after 3 months, kick them out and start again, you have to be delusional, they would go broke within a year. Use some commonsense, rise above the union propaganda, they are only doing this because they see there own narcissist control over there drones slipping away from them. Fade away into history unions, the majority of people in this country are smart enough to manage there own professions without the need of your bully 19th century tactics.

21 Aug 2010 07:13p.m.

Guy wrote:

A shame but the law... While there will be plenty of cost cutting company's filling gaps with 89 day workers there are also plenty of workers that prove there is a need for a law of this type + Burger fuel's response was rushed and has done nothing but fueled the unions publicity

21 Aug 2010 12:45p.m.

steve wrote:

Below is an email I recently got 2 years after closing our store in Christchursh..I have 6 other simialar letters written to me about this employee.
And could we fire her?? Hell no!..We ended up being taken to court and paying her out!
Hi Steve,

Can you please consider opening another store in Chch? The *&^%$ Boutique is sorely missed by so many! I can guarantee that the only reason it did not make anywhere near as much profit as it should have is because you had *&^% as the manager.
She has ruined every shop she has worked at because of her revolting attitude. She would not let customers touch the clothes, will not hold anything even for 30min, will not serve customers she considers to be “unworthy” and would frequently be chatting on the phone to her friends instead of providing any kind of customer service. In order to buy a tee shirt one day I had to write down a style, size and price on a piece of paper and leave it on the counter with the cash, hoping she would see it later, as she was “too busy” to serve me for a full 20 minutes. She was actually standing at the counter talking to a friend on the phone about what they were going to wear to a party!

Thank you from a loyal customer,
Katie

21 Aug 2010 11:30a.m.

steve wrote:

How bout we start naming and shaming employees who do a bad job.. turning up late..always sick..no motivation etc..Stand outside there houses and expose them!

21 Aug 2010 10:55a.m.

Mike wrote:

All that this young woman asked for was her legally entitled breaks, and she got the sack! Are vulnerable workers going to risk making a fuss about, say, unsafe practices in their first 90 days? Somone could die as a result of this law.

21 Aug 2010 10:14a.m.

Ernst wrote:

I'll bet Joanne Bartlett was not a paid up member of that union and what's with the hard hat in the photo?

21 Aug 2010 08:14a.m.

Dan wrote:

This was obviously just a staged photo opportunity for the union to promote their new (thuggish) "campaign" against employers. Notice that the date on the letter of notice from the employer is the 4th of April - over 4 months ago!! Hardly a spontaneous action in support of a sacked worker.

21 Aug 2010 03:32a.m.

charlie wrote:

This 90day probation period policy expansion-extension to all business is going to impact hugely on anyone,seeking work,as well as people,already in the employed 90day expansion.