Background
Cheryn is a gay man who worked for a Govt Department. He was never hassled for being gay – in fact for the first six months of his employment he was never hassled at all. Then the team leader left and was not replaced, and things gradually turned to custard.

Peter, one of the other employees in the team, was grossly incompetent. He was careless with confidential information, and failed to complete documentation and follow the operating procedures that had been agreed. Peter’s interpersonal skills were woeful, he told lies to cover his deficiencies, and he made sexually innappropriate remarks about female clients that the female staff in the team and Cheryn found completely out of order.

Trouble
Extensive training and a “quiet word” to Peter had been inneffective, and when Cheryn raised a lack of operational effectiveness as an issue the whole team should address, Peter and JR, who was his “mentor” turned on Cheryn and were quite abusive. Over the next six months Cheryn tried to have the deficiencies in the service caused by Peter’s incompetence and JR’s willingness to “cover” for him addressed officially. No show. Dick, their immediate manager sided with the other “straight” males and identified Cheryn as “the problem”. He did not find Peter’s sexual remarks out of order, and warned Cheryn against “causing trouble”.

Peter and JR began to actively bully Cheryn, and made his working environment really unpleasant. He raised the issue with his supervisor and told Dick the manager that Peter and JR were bullying him, but Dick just laughed and refused to take his complaint seriously. Cheryn’s supervisor wrote to Dick, complaining that the sexually innappropriate behavior around female clients had to be addressed, and Cheryn continued to complain about the bullying, which was getting worse every week.

More Trouble
Then Peter laid a complaint of bullying against Cheryn. The Department set up an investigation with very wide terms of reference. They seemed to be designed to give very wide scope for a finding that Cheryn had behaved innappropriately or contrary to the Department’s Code of Conduct. The investigation dragged on for months. Dick admitted to the investigator that Cheryn had complained to him that he was being bullied by Peter and JR. Eventually, Cheryn was completely cleared of bullying or innappropriate behavior towards Peter. But Peter and JR continued to bully Cheryn.

Cheryn’s health started to deteriorate because of the stress that Peter and JR’s bullying was causing, and his Doctor and his supervisor were both clear that he had to “get out of there”. He resigned from his position and took another job with lower pay.

Call an Advocate
Then he called me. He should have done that before he resigned. It is always better to make a strong case while the employee is still in the job and negotiate an exit package rather than have to deal with the situation where the employee has gone and then argue that they had no choice other than to resign.

Legal Issues
The legal position was very simple. Cheryn had complained to his manager Dick that he was being bullied. Dick’s failure to take Cheryn’s complaint seroiusly and investigate it was a clear breach of his duty as a good employer in terms of s103A of the Employment Relations Act. A Personal Grievance for Unjustified Disadvantage was as certain as it reasonably could be. Whether JR and Peter actually had been bullying Cheryn was of lesser importance. If it could be proved that they were, it would add to Cheryn’s Hurt and Humiliation and to the payment that he would receive in consequence, but the fact that Cheryn’s complaint was not investigated established the Unjustified Disadvantage.

If there had been any element of “gay bashing” or homophobia in Peter and JR’s behavior, the bullying would have been a Human Rights issue, and could have been taken to the Human Rights Commission, but Cheryn’s sexual orientation was not an issue (except that he was not part of the “old boys club” that operated in the Govt Depatment he worked in), so this was a matter for the Employment Relations Authority.

I also thought it was worth arguing that Cheryn had had no option other than to resign as a result of Dick’s action and the ongoing bullying from Peter and JR. If that could be established, then a Personal Grievance for Constructive Dismissal would entitle Cheryn to three months wages in addition to a payment for Hurt and Humiliation he would get for the Unjustified Disadvantage.

First Negotiations
I notified the employer of a PG for Unjustified Disadvantage and Unjustified Dismissal by way of Constructive Dismissal, and suggested we talk. They took a very long time to answer and when we eventually met, they (quite reasonably) asked for details and (quite unreasonably) then delayed the process of going to mediation for nearly six months.

The matter should have settled in mediation. Cheryn had complained of being bullied. There was no argument about that. His manager Dick had laughed at his complaint and failed to investigate it. No argument about that. But the employer would not address that issue and kept taking the argument sideways into a consideration of whether Cheryn had “really” been bullied, or whether he was the author of his own misfortune. I kept reminding the employer that publicity about an “old boys club” of male managers ignoring complaints of sexually innappropriate behavior by a male staff member would not be a good look.

We went away from the mediation with a request to supply more details of the bullying. We did, and months and months later, the employer finally determined to fight the case and we filed a Statement of Problem with the Employment Relations Authority and a hearing date was set down.

First Strike

Government Departments have deep pockets, and they engaged a very senior and experienced (and bloody good) barrister specialising in employment cases. They could have settled the whole case for less than what it costs to say “good morning” to him. He was enormously smart and competent, and after making mincemeat of me in a telephone conference to set a timetable for the case, he informed me that he would be calling a dozen witnesses, and that the hearing would take three days in consequence.

I had to tell Cheryn that the risks of proceeding further had just tripled. The ERA normally adopts a “tarriff” approach to costs, and awards the successful party about $2500 per hearing day. I didn’t think Cheryn’s risk of losing and having costs awarded against him were very high, but tripling even a low risk is something to be thought about.

King hit

For a three day hearing, Cheryns’ risk was about $7500 in costs if he lost. He calculated that the Govt Dept would be spending the thick end of $40,000 on the case, and decided to proceed. Then their barrister made a ridiculously low “Calderbank” offer to settle the matter.

There is more info about a “Calderbank” offer in the notes on Employment Law on this site, but the simple effect is that if a Calderbank offer is made and rejected, and the award eventually made is less than the “Calderbank” offer, the ERA can award the full costs of the proceedings against the winner – so even though Cheryn was fairly certain to win an award, if it was less than their low offer, he might be stuck with a $40,000 bill for costs.

There was no way he could take that risk, and I had to advise him to settle for an amount that was less than half what he could have reasonably expected to get from the ERA.

The Employment Relations Authority did not fine the employer. The Authority awarded a worker some money for hurt and humiliation, and some for lost wages after his employer failed to carry out a fair process and suspended him without pay or consultation. The “coke recipe” was only in the headline to titillate the reader’s imagination.

The existence of this article raises some interesting questions. When the reporter rang me I realised that my intention to keep everything about all my client’s business confidential was about to be tested.

When a client comes to me with a problem, it is easy to keep the matter confidential right up until the time it goes before the ERA. Since 90% of my cases are resolved before an ERA hearing (called an Investigation Meeting), confidentiality is always part of the settlement, and rarely causes any difficulties or problems.

But once things go before the Authority (ERA), they are like Court proceedings and the hearings are open and the decisions (called Determinations) are public, and available to the press.

This was the second time that a reporter had followed up a favorable decision of the ERA on one of my cases, but previously the reporter concerned had gone straight to my client. This time they had come to me.

I had been intending to post about this case on the website in the usual way -with names and details changed to protect the privacy of the client, but since Determinations of the ERA are public documents and they named not only my client, but also me as her representative, strict confidentiality had already gone out the window. I told the reporter I didn’t want to comment and that I would advise my client not to, but she went ahead anyway and got comment from the employer.

So I can say something about it – but only based on the Determination.

The case was huge – not for the money, but for the amount of time and volume and complexity of the evidence. The café claimed my client started 3 months after she actually did and worked only 20 hrs per week (paid by cheque and accounted for through IRD) – but in fact she was working long hours and they were treating her like all the other workers and paying the bulk of the wages in cash. They told her they were paying the IRD the tax they deducted but they were actually pocketing it. They kept falsified wages and time records accordingly, but these records were clearly nonsense and not even internally consistent.

When push came to shove, the Cafe produced their other workers as witnesses. They gave sworn evidence that the Authority found “unsatisfactory” that they themselves had only worked limited hours, and that my client had worked only 20 hours per week and that no one had ever been paid in cash.
I am not surprised that the Authority found for my client. Her witnesses were consistent and straightforward, and her case was bolstered by a huge amount of documentary evidence.

The Little Turkish Café are threatening to appeal to the Employment Court, but I don’t ultimately think they will. I think they know that their witnesses will still be “unsatisfactory”, and my client’s 15cm file of documents will be just as convincing in the Employment Court.

When people go looking for advice on employment law they usually have a problem in their workplace. It may be redundancy, or workplace bullying, or a personal grievance over dismissal. Whatever it is, the first thing they want and need is clear information in plain english. The site should be well structured and laid out so that the content is easy to understand.

Motuweb designed the website, and I wrote the content. We tried very hard to give information and advice in logical sequence and plain english. We are really pleased with the website and we are delighted that the 2008 Plain English Awards’ judges liked it too.

Good workplace relationships are built on clear commumication.
Successful advocacy and negotiation are also built on clear communication
The 2008 Plain English Awards promote clear communication. We support them wholeheartedly.

There are a number of possible grounds that might allow an employer to discipline a worker for bad behavior even when it is not apparently connected to the workplace.

One ground might be contractual. Some Individual Employment Agreements contain a provision to the effect that the employee must do nothing to bring the employer into disrepute, and the courts have on ocassion held that that term is implied in an Employment Agreement even when it is not stated explicitly in that agreement.

I don’t know what was in Tony Veitch’s Individual Employment Agreements with TVNZ and Radio Sport in relation to not bringing them as employers into disrepute, but in this instance, I believe that the Courts would be likely to accept the argument that the “not to bring into disrepute” term was implied even if it was not explicitly stated. I would certainly be happy to argue on those grounds because the employers concerned are prominently in the public eye, and especially because Tony Veitch, as their “frontman” represents them in a very real sense. If the “not bring into disrepute” term was in the contract, or if the ERA (or the Court) held that the term was implied, then disciplinary action could certainly be justified.

A second ground that could be argued (I believe sucessfully) in Tony Veitch’s case would be that the publicity surrounding the matter and the nature of the allegations made it impossible for him to do his job. He could not front the program, increase the ratings, maintain good relationships with sponsors and advertisers etc. Whether the employer would have to show a decline in ratings to justify removing Veitch is debatable – perhaps an expression of concern from a sponsor or an advertiser would be enough.

So TVNZ and Radio Sport could almost certainly have taken disciplinary action against Tony Veitch and dismissed him. But they didn’t. Instead, after some discussion (and presumably negotiation), he resigned.

Since Veitch went quietly (if you can call the minor furore at the time quietly), rather than being sacked and taking a Personal Grievance to the ERA, it is likely that some sort of settlement was arranged. His employers were on a hiding to nothing, and their interests were best served by cutting him loose and getting him away from their programs asap. They would not have wanted a messy fight with the inevitable attendant publicity dragged out for months. Since such settlements are always confidential, we will never know if a settlement was made or how much the employers paid to have Tony Veitch resign if one was.

That is quite interesting from a NZ perspective.

Here, caselaw under the Employment Relations Act has made it quite clear that an employee must be afforded opportunity to have advice, support, and representation throughout the
course of any disciplinary process. I get a substantial proportion of inquiries from the parents of employees who believe their offspring are being badly treated at work.

That is perhaps not surprising, in that it would be reasonable to expect that it will be the younger, less experienced and less self confident and assertive members of the workforce who will be most likely to be badly treated.

The “termination meeting” idea is also interesting from an NZ perspective. Here, any employer who summoned an employee to a “termination meeting” would risk a grievance for unjustified dismissal on the grounds that they had prejudged the issue of how the meeting would end and the performance issues would be resolved.

An amendment to s103 of the Employment Relations Act (now s103A) was introduced to make it clear that an employer must behave as a “good employer” rather than merely not behave unreasonably. Case law has since made it clear that the employer should ideally:-

• Specify any performance deficiencies in some detail.
• Afford the employee time, training and opportunity to remedy the deficiencies.
• Give the employee ongoing and detailed feedback about their subsequent performance.
• Notify the employee of continuing deficiencies in their performance and the possible consequences for their employment.
• Give the employee opportunity to make submissions about the matter.
• Consider the employee’s submissions.
• Decide to terminate.
• Give the employee opportunity to make further submissions.
• Consider the further submissions.
• Terminate.

A dismissal will not be held unjustified solely because the employer has missed out a minor step in the process, but missing two or three is risky, and conducting a process that is seen to be unfair is always fatal.

Trouble
The social club’s Xmas party was a separate function from the firm’s official Xmas party, and was held at a local restaurant, booked as a private function. Robert had “primed himself” with a few drinks beforehand to try and get in the mood for his “life of the party” role. Bad idea. He kept drinking and started to behave inappropriately, making sexual advances to some of the female staff and arguing with and abusing the boss. When he mounted the table to sing “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer” while waving the end of a cocktail sausage through his fly, most people believed he had gone too far. He was bundled into a taxi and taken home.

More trouble
The next day Robert was given a letter summoning him to a disciplinary meeting to discuss his behavior at the social club function. The letter was quite specific about the things Robert had done, warned him that the matters were serious and could result in the loss of his employment, and invited him to bring a representative. The boss suggested that Robert take a few days special leave on full pay in the meantime to allow things to “cool down”. Robert was feeling very ashamed of himself and readily agreed.

Call an Advocate
Robert went home and called me, asking for support at the disciplinary meeting, and also asking me to investigate whether the boss could discipline him for bad behavior away from work at a private function at a restaurant.

Legal position
I had to tell Robert that the boss could discipline him for his behavior. For a long time it was uncertain what was “work business” and what was not until a Court of Appeal decision provided some certainty. The Court held that if a “nexus” of connection with work existed then the employer had a legitimate interest and could legitimately expect that staff would behave appropriately. A staff social club Xmas function certainly qualified, and the fact that the boss attended along with all the other staff added weight to this position.
The letter giving notice of the disciplinary meeting was a model of specificity and fairness, and the boss had discussed Robert’s special paid leave (effectively a suspension) and Robert had agreed, so there was no question of procedural deficiencies or an unfair process so far.

I considered whether the boss had discharged his duty in relation to ensuring host responsibility (food – not serving drinks to Robert while intoxicated, safe transport), but since it was a social club function there were questions about how far the boss’ responsibilites in that direction extended. The company certainly had policies prohibiting harassment. They had been well publicised, and training had been given.

First steps
I called the boss for a discussion on a “without prejudice” basis. The boss was keen to talk. He explained that Robert was a good worker and that everyone was sorry that things had gone too far. He said that he was “over a barrel” in that he had received a complaint from one of the women Robert had harassed, and that he had to act to protect the company.
I agreed that he clearly had to make a full investigation of the complaint, and that some sort of disciplinary action was probably inevitable , since there were nearly 20 witnesses to the facts.

Meeting
I attended the meeting to support Robert. The boss went through the complaint he had recieved from the staff member Robert had harassed. I pointed out that he should have made that complaint available to Robert along with the letter summoning him to the meeting. Robert admitted the offensive behavior (he didn’t have much option).
Then the boss went through the other points in his letter, including Robert abusing him, and the “Rudolf incident”. Robert said he was very sorry.
The boss sent us out while he decided whether his “investigation” had established misconduct on Robert’s part. It took him about 15 mins to decide that Robert was guillty of misconduct.
He didn’t invite us to comment on that finding before he announced his decision on the penalty. He should have. A fair process requires that the employee have a chance to comment on the finding before a penalty is decided, and a further chance to comment on the proposed penalty before it is actually imposed. The boss didnt give us a chance to comment on the penalty either. He issued a final written warning, and offered to pay for counselling for Robert to help him deal with his depression. Since we thought the penalty was very reasonable, we did not raise the deficiencies in the latter part of the disciplinary process. Robert resolved to take advantage of the boss’ offer of counselling, and promised not to drink at future staff functions.

The employer’s general duty to ensure the health and safety of their staff will almost certainly include all the “host responsibility” measures that apply on licensed premises. It will also ideally extend to establising and reminding staff about policies to prevent sexual harassment and abusive behavior. It is very important that managers remain sufficiently in charge of their faculties to prevent and defuse any situations that could potentially give rise to a grievance for failing to take action to remedy a situation they knew about.

I dealt with a case last year in which a manager saw an older male employee leading a very drunk and much younger female employee away from the cafeteria during a staff Xmas “do”. The manager was himself tipsy and made ribald comments as they departed. He was later very upset to find himself on the recieving end of two grievances – one for humiliating the female employee, and one for failing to protect her from the sexual harassment she suffered at the hands of the older male employee.

One of the case histories on the site covers the issue of employee’s responsibilities at a “work do”.

The proposed bill will not require employers to agree to flexible working arrangements, but it will require the employer to give consideration as to whether the employee’s needs can be accommodated.

Many employees (even those without dependants) would like more flexibility in their hours and arrangements, and many employers have found that such flexibility improves productivity, staff recruitment and retention, and morale.

“research shows that when employees have more control over their working hours they are likely to be more motivated and productive, and that there will be less absenteeism, staff turnover, and stress related illness”

Some employers are concerned about compliance costs, and unless they have well structured, fully developed, and well publicised policies and procedures for making and dealing with employees requests under the legislation, compliance costs could be significant.

I believe that good processes integrated into the organisation’s HR system will reduce compliance costs. They are also likely to pay big dividends in ensuring that all the employers business processes are regularly examined and evaluated.

Background
Brian had owned and run a business for nearly twenty years. Recently, he had employed a manager and semi retired to do some fishing.

Brian’s company had contracts to maintain air conditioning units in hundreds of commercial buildings. All the actual work was done by sixteen contractors and only the manager and some office staff were salaried employees. Brian had been employing contractors since he started the business, and had never had a problem with them. He kept a tight rein on them, providing training, tools and materials, and close supervision. If a contractor failed to perform, he was simply offered no more work. That was quite safe if the workers were really contractors, but very risky if they were really employees.

Trouble
George, one of the contractors, had been away sick. Then he wrote to Brian, claiming that he had been bullied by the manager, and claiming that he was unable to work because of stress as a result. George also claimed that he was really an employee rather than a contractor and was consequently protected by the Employment Relations Act because the “contractual relationship” between him and Brian was a sham.

Brian wasn’t worried. He had engaged contractors for years. He knew George was a contractor. It said so on the contract they had both signed. Even though Brian’s company paid GST on George’s behalf, George paid his own income tax and paid his own expenses. Bloody nonsense! And as for the bullying – Harden up! If you can’t stand the heat, don’t work in the kitchen!. Go work for someone else!

Brian wrote a letter to George telling him pretty much that. George didn’t reply to the letter, but returned all the company tools and filters and spare parts Brian’s company had provided. He didn’t show at work the next day and when the manager rang him, George said he was “finished”. Brian heard on the grapevine that George was working for another firm.

More Trouble
A month later Brian got notification from George’s lawyer of a Personal Grievance for Unjustified Disadvantage in relation to the bullying and for Unjustified Dismissal by way of Constructive Dismissal in relation to Brian’s unwillingness to address the bullying and his “get out of the kitchen” comment. George was seeking a large settlement, including three months wages and $15000 for hurt and humiliation.

Call an advocate
Brian was reasonably sure he was on safe ground in relation to George being a contractor, but after a quiet word with a couple of the other contractors, he was having second thoughts about the allegations of bullying. So he called me. “You’re about half the price of a lawyer, and this should be simple” he informed me bluntly.

When I started to investigate, it wasn’t simple. The manager believed he had been “hard but fair”. He had certainly regularly sworn at George and abused him personally, “ridden him pretty hard”, and often teased him about “all sorts of stuff”.

Regular and relentless teasing about personal appearance, dress sense and choice of vehicle might or might not be bullying, but personal abuse and putdowns and the sort of micromanagement the manager admitted to certainly were.

The contractor/ employee question wasn’t simple either. The Employment Contracts Act which was the relevant legislation up until 2000 classified people as contractors pretty much on the parties’ say so and on whether PAYE was deducted from money paid over. In 2000, the Employment Relations Act changed the way that the relationship between an employer and a contractor/employee was viewed. George might well be regarded as an employee and entitled to raise a grievance.

The Legal Situation

The first question was whether George was an employee or a contractor in terms of being able to raise a PG. The Employment Relations Authority would determine whether George had been an employee and only consider a PG if he was.
As well as the light that taxation compliance issues like PAYE and GST would shed on the nature of the relationship between George and Brian, the Authority would consider :

• Whether George and Brian intended to be in an employment relationship
• The level of autonomy George exercised in his day to day activity
• Whether George was able to control and profit from his own business decisions
• Whether George could refuse work or work for other people as well
• Whether George could set his own rate and price his own jobs
• Whether George could set his own working hours
• How much and what level of direct supervision George got
• Who owned the tools and equipment
• Who supplied the materials to do the maintenance
• Who arranged and paid for George’s training

Brian and George had signed a Contract for Service acknowledging that George was an independent contractor, and not an employee, but on pretty nearly all the rest of the criteria, the Employment Relations Authority was likely to regard George as an employee.

So a Personal Grievance was likely to be accepted, and the managers personal abuse and putdowns clearly constituted bullying. If Brian had acted to investigate George’s complaint straight away, he might have been able to argue successfully that he had taken all reasonable steps to act as a good employer. The fact that he did not meant that George’s claim for unjustified disadvantage was likely to succeed

Brian’s failure also made it reasonable for George to conclude that Brian was never going to protect him from bullying and to believe that he had no option except to quit. George’s lawyer would undoubtedly argue that Brian should have forseen that his actions would cause George to quit and that George had been constructively dismissed as a result.

First steps
Brian needed to estimate the risks to his business.

George’s grievance was relatively minor. If George were found to be an employee and the Authority found in his favour on the unjustified disadvantage and the constructive dismissal he could expect $5-6000 for hurt and humiliation and up to three months wages (depending on how long he was out of work before finding another job). Since Brian knew that George had walked straight into a better paid job as a service manager for a rival firm, there would be no wages payable. So in relation to George’s PGs, Brian’s downside risk was $6000 plus some of George’s legal costs.

In relation to the other contractors, his risks were frightening. If George was an employee, so were the other fifteen “contractors”. What about the tax liability? Who else had the manager bullied?

It was clear that Brian needed first to settle with George.

Then he needed to deal with the manager he had employed, and make sure he received training about bullying. The manager clearly needed to learn what behavior was appropriate and what was not.

Then Brian needed to review and alter the processes and procedures by which his company priced work and managed the contractors to ensure that a genuine Contract for Service existed, and that the maintenance contractors were truly independent contractors and not employees.

Negotiation

I negotiated with George’s lawyer on Brian’s behalf. It was clear that an apology was required, along with a s123 payment for hurt and humiliation. We offered that apology, along with a s123 payment of $2000. No deal. Negotiations stalled. I was not quite connecting with George’s lawyer and it was clear that I was missing something. Since the Employment Relations Act specifies that all communication must go through a representative once one is appointed I was not permitted to talk to George directly.

Mediation

So we went to a mediation with the Employment Relations Service. That worked much better. George told his story of bullying and harassment, of daily teasing and abuse, of feeling like a fool and having his work nitpicked , of not wanting to come to work, of sleeplessness and worry, of waking up anxious and throwing up before breakfast every day. As he told his story, George was tearful. I believed him. So did Brian.

Brian was devastated. He had had no idea what had been going on in his absence or how badly George had been affected. He wanted to put things right. He apologised again, and offered $5000 for hurt and humiliation. No deal.

I gradually understood that it wasn’t the money George wanted, and that an apology from Brian cut no ice. I suggested we take a break and get the manager in. We did, and even though Brian was very angry with the manager I persuaded him to let me handle the situation.

When the manger arrived, I explained to him that the mediation process was confidential and “without prejudice” and that any admissions he made could not be used against him or Brian’s company. I told him it was important that he should listen to George’s story and that it would be helpful if he was able to make an honest response to it.

When the mediation resumed, George repeated his story. The manager was at first defensive and dismissive, but then George started to shake and cry. The mediator wanted to stop the session, but I persuaded everyone to let it go on. As George continued to speak about how it had been for him, the manager started to get very uncomfortable and began to acknowledge what he had done and to make increasingly sincere apologies. The effect on George was magic.

Like many victims of workplace bullying, George had badly needed to be listened to and believed, and to have his experience and suffering acknowledged and validated. Once the manager admitted that these things had happened, and that he was in the wrong, George felt vindicated. Once the manager said that he was sorry with every appearance of sincerity, the dispute was easy to settle. George accepted the $5000 and the apology.

Followup

The manager was very eager to have some training around communication, interpersonal relations, and the management of staff. I organised that quickly, and the manager participated enthusiastically and seemed to learn a lot. He certainly changed the way he related to staff.

Reviewing and changing the policies and procedures to manage the contractors differently took a little longer. The system I helped Brian design ultimately ensured that the contractors:

• acknowledged they were free to refuse work
• acknowledged they were free to contract to other firms
• arranged and paid for their own training
• estimated and priced their own jobs
• determined their own working hours
• supplied their own tools and materials
• performed the work to quality standards specified in the contract
• submitted their own invoices
• paid their own GST

They operated with much more autonomy than before, and once the new system was up and running, all of them preferred it. The manger found that he did not need to supervise the contractors so closely, since they were working to clearly specified standards, and he no longer needed to keep track of hours they worked. He used his time to grow the business and soon had to employ more contractors. Brian got to do some serious fishing.