Julie, Yep, there are circumstances where a suspension can be viewed as punitive, such as where one needs to keep up flying hours or practise one’s skill. But the complainant would have to demonstrate disadvantage (it would be an employer’s action to the employee’s disadvantge), and I don’t think that Tan would be able to do this in this case.

How do you know that the decision to suspend was hasty? Can such a decision be too hasty, given that it does not disadvantage the employee [in this case -- see comments below for further discussion of this point]? It’s merely a holding pattern until the matter is sorted out, which they are currently in the process of doing. It doesn’t in itself constitute a disciplinary action.

dave, the exec didn’t get to decide, because Tan didn’t apply.

I am beginning to think that the Act needs to be amended to allow other political organisations to discriminate on the grounds of political beliefs.

Political beliefs? Or actions that stem from political beliefs?

I think that’s where we’re getting this all confused, it’s Tan’s behaviour being censured, not his beliefs.

Take, for another example, a cafe where the dress code was plain black top, plain black skirt or pants, branded cafe supplied apron; everyone complies with it, everyone always has. If a staff member comes to work in a bright red Labour top, or a blue National top, or a yellow ACT jacket, or whatever – I would have thought that the employer would have a right to deal with it as non-compliance with the dress code. Just as they would if the person just felt that they preferred pink and lacy.

Anita, Sorry, the remark was a general one, and not related directly to Tan’s case. But yes, if dress codes have been in place for a while, have not been challenged by the employees, are not contrary to any statutory or contractual provisions, and are reasonable, then they come to form part of an employee’s “contract of service”. On that basis the employer can enforce the dress code. But discrimination on the basis of political opinion is covered by the HRA and ERA. So it’s not the same.

Note that the action of Tan’s that is subject to the disciplinary process is the failure to seek the Union’s approval before standing for public office.

That’s a really tough question, but a good one. The Human Rights Act contains a number of exceptions to the prohibited grounds for discrimination that allow for the application of common sense to situations where it is unreasonable to prohibit discrimination. If we were running a lingerie shop, for example, we could not be reasonably expected not to discriminate against men. Discrimination on various grounds is allowable in private homes, for counselling services, religious organisations and so on.

In respect of political opinion, discrimination is allowed against:

(a) A political adviser or secretary to a member of Parliament; or
(b) A political adviser to a member of a local authority; or
(c) A political adviser to a candidate seeking election to the House of Representatives or to a local authority within the meaning of the Local Electoral Act 2001; or
(d) A member of the staff of a political party.

I am beginning to think that the Act needs to be amended to allow other political organisations to discriminate on the grounds of political beliefs. Unions provide political representation to their members, and that is a large part of their role. Arguably they should be included in any such exemption.

As it stands, the Act doesn’t allow such discrimination, so my guess is that the answer to your question is, “Sorry, but no.”

You’re making perfect sense to me

I need to be a little circumspect about the specifics of this situation as I know Shawn and a number of the people involved. This doesn’t mean I have much in the way of inside information on the EPMU’s case though, which is a pity

I’m trying to work out how to put this, so bear with me. I’m wondering about whether an employer, hypothetically speaking of course, could make a case that where the employee’s core work is to deal with approaches by people for assistance their well-known political views might put those people off approaching them. When those views are diametrically opposed to being on the same side as the people likely to approach them for help.

I’ve actually considered this myself, which is why I only started blogging under my own name whilst on maternity leave. I was concerned that my views, particularly on abortion, might put members off calling me for help when they needed it, and I didn’t want that to happen. Now I’ve got over it (which is just as well because I’m back to my union job in a little over a month!).

But I’m not advocating political views that are opposed to those of the policies of the union I work for. I am careful to steer clear, in my blogging, of issues to do with the specific sectors I work with, so that there is no confusion that when I do put my views forward they are my employers, as they are not. Sometimes I’ll comment on other people’s posts from my expertise, but I am very careful about how I write those comments and try to use them to add knowledge and information rather than opinion.

I’m not sure I’m making much sense here. Does anyone get what I’m trying to say?