Susan Hornsby-Geluk is managing partner at employment law firm Dundas Street and a regular opinion contributor.
OPINION: Last week Treasure Island host, Matt Chisholm, announced that he had been “let go” from the programme and his employment with TVNZ. He said that he had been invited to control the narrative and say “I’ve decided to stand down from the role to spend more time with family”, or something similar, but that would be dishonest.
This is refreshing. In most cases I do not think people genuinely believe that employees choose to leave good jobs, with no alternative employment to go to, to spend time with family. Instead, this is recognised code for I have been required to leave against my wishes and am trying to put a positive spin on it.
Frankly, the “spending time with family” yarn seems unimaginative and lazy. Surely there are better ways to frame an “involuntary departure”. For example, “the role I was employed to perform has changed substantially and is no longer challenging me” or “I have always wanted to study psychology and think now is the right time to take the plunge”.
There are a range of explanations that could be given to position an exit more favourably. However, the question is who gets to determine how the departure is framed?
The starting point is that an employer is not entitled to disclose personal information about an employee without their consent. So, in the absence of agreement between the employer and the departing employee, the employer...
Hong Kong Customs arrests company director suspected of supplying baby hair and body wash with false trade descriptions Hong Kong Customs recently arrested a female director of a trading company s...