Employment and Migration Blog

The national minimum wage rate and minimum modern award wages for the new financial year will come into effect from 1 July 2020.

In our latest Employment Law Blog, Senior Associate Anna Ford discusses a recent case where the Fair Work Commission (FWC) dismissed an Uber Eats Driver’s appeal in a pursual for unfair dismissal as she was labelled “not an employee”.

In this blog, Principal Lawyer Stephen Booth explains the Government’s new superannuation amnesty legislation that passed Parliament in February and became law on 6 March 2020.

In our latest Employment Blog, Principal Lawyer Stephen Booth outlines how to deal with bullying claims and the disciplinary process.

Although an aggrieved employee is entitled to pursue their rights to the fullest extent permitted under law, employees on their way out can sometimes be motivated to inflict as much pain and suffering on a business, and those who represent it, as possible. This article answers the question 'to what extent can an employee pursue a claim when it either lacks merit, or is vexatious and has been lodged purely to spite the employer?'.

The Fair Work Commission recently made a significant decision pertaining to requests for flexible work arrangements. Since 1 December 2018, the right to request flexible arrangements has been supported by a new modern award clause providing more structure around the process.  The new clause imposes an obligation on employers to discuss the request with the employee and genuinely try to reach an agreement, before making a decision about whether to grant or refuse the request.

The results of the 2018 survey on sexual harassment in the workplace (conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission and involving over 10,0000 Australian participants) are now in, and they have produced what I would consider to be some seriously concerning statistics!

The notice period is the most likely time that an employee will attempt to steal confidential information, so businesses need to manage the transition process carefully in order to get the most out of departing employees, while also protecting themselves from risk.  

Departing employees often pose the greatest risk to the future goodwill of a business, as they have had the opportunity to form relationships with the client base and supplier network and may wish to take advantage of this knowledge.

When an employee notifies his / her employer that they wish to terminate their employment, their employment will automatically terminate when the relevant notice period expires. What happens when an employee wishes to withdraw their resignation?

When an employee resigns, it is often prudent for their employer to keep the departing employee on their books. During this period, the employer may instruct the employee not to attend their place of work – but to still remain available to perform duties as directed. This is commonly known as ‘gardening leave’.

To successfully defend an unfair dismissal claim, an employer must be able to satisfy the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

The tension between traditional employment law frameworks and the gig economy has come to the fore once again after the Fair Work Commission holds that an Uber driver is not an employee.

In a recent case, the HR manager of a Chinese restaurant was fined $21,760 for knowingly processing underpayments and helping to falsify records. Under the Fair Work Act, she was liable as an accessory for the company’s failure to pay minimum rates and entitlements over a 16-month period. HR managers and workplace advisers have been warned.

Are you dealing with an employee who is repeatedly late to work? Have you considered whether that would constitute a legitimate basis to terminate their employment? In short, the answer is yes! If you follow the correct process...

You might think that any issues that arise with the employee on a fixed term contract will go away once the contract expires. A recent decision of the Federal Circuit Court has confirmed that this is not the case.

Recently outrage was sparked at the Daily Telegraph in the UK when employees came to work to find plastic monitoring boxes attached to their desks. Employees discovered that the boxes were produced by OccupEye and could be used to monitor whether individuals were at their desks. The employees had not been advised that these boxes were going to be installed, nor about their purpose.

The case of Huntley v State of NSW, Department of Police and Justice (Corrective Services NSW) provides a timely reminder of the dangers associated with making decisions about the ability of employees with an illness or injury to perform the inherent requirements of the job.

The primary benefit of incorporating certain company rules and procedures into a company policy rather than an employment contract can be the ability of the employer to be able to vary and amend the terms of its policy or policies over time in order to accommodate the forever changing environment of business operations. The terms of an employment contract on the other hand, cannot be varied without the consent of both parties – so it can be a lot trickier to try and implement any change.

If there was ever any doubt, the Fair Work Commission has confirmed a definite distinction between swearing IN the workplace, and swearing AT someone in the workplace (whether it be a manager or another employee).

From time to time I find myself discussing issues related to the amount of information (or more accurately, the lack of information) recorded on an employee’s doctor’s certificate, and whether or not my client can ask the relevant employee to attend a doctor of my client’s choosing – two recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) cases have shed some light on this issue.

The Fair Work Commission recently held that a company’s Facebook message to one of its employees telling her that it would be inappropriate if she was to return to work did in fact amount to the termination of her employment.

A mining company in Central Queensland, Biloela’s Anglo Coal Callide Mine, is currently being sued for $1.26 million after one of its miners tumbled more than 1.5m down a rock face whilst in a dozer, causing permanent injury to the employees spine.

Facebook or Face-Crook All it took was for a Shona Mackin to undertake a quick Facebook search of one of her employees to discover that the employee’s so called ‘injury’ and claim for workers compensation was fraudulent - and it was all downhill from there! The relevant employee sought workers compensation after he was involved in a motorcycle accident which he claimed happened on the way to his work. Subsequently the employee requested light duties and was working only two hours a day due to the pain he was experiencing in his arm.

The dismissal of an employee who misused his employer’s computer system has been deemed ‘not harsh or unjust’ and has been held to amount to serious misconduct.

Providing a safe work environment – are you addressing your bullying complaints? Following on from my previous blog where I emphasised the importance of employers managing employee relationships, a case has emerged in Queensland in which an employer who turned a blind eye to workplace bullying was found to be negligent of providing a safe work environment. Ms Wolters had been verbally abused and threatened by another employee, Mr Bradley, and as a result suffered severe depression and was unable to return to work.

Mediation could save your career…and life. What started as a minor disagreement between Alex Andrasch and another employee almost turned into an ugly scene with Andrasch narrowly escaping getting his ‘head bashed to pieces.’ The other employee was a trained kick boxer and Muay Thai fighter who became enraged when Andrasch questioned his martial arts credentials. Andrasch, also a martial arts fighter, told the employee he had no idea what he was talking about when he heard the employee explaining how to defeat someone who uses Kung Fu - this deeply angered the employee who in response told colleagues that he planned to attack Andrasch once he got him alone.

The Fair Work Ombudsman is in the process of pursuing the owner of an Italian restaurant in Terrigal for failing to pay back nine underpaid employees, including two juniors aged 16 and 19. On top of the total of $12,178.00 owed, the owner could also be facing exposure to penalties, which range from $10,200 per contravention for an individual and $51,000 per contravention for a body corporate.

With increasing demands being placed on employee's time and productivity levels in recent years, there is a growing trend for employees to be using their own personal electronic devices (such as smart phones, iPads and so on) as well as other electronic storage devices to enable them to juggle work commitments outside of the office - whether it be whilst working at home, or in between client/customer appointments.

Having a baby can be an exciting – and demanding – time for parents. The last thing they want to worry about is trying to negotiate suitable return to work arrangements with an employer! However, despite the desire of many first-time parents to plan ahead and confirm arrangements before they go on parental leave, it is usually better not to lock in definite return to work arrangements until after the baby is born. This is because there are often unforeseen events that might occur and make the best of plans fall through. Negotiating suitable return to work arrangements for employees who have had a baby is something many business owners and managers will have to face. As an employer you have a responsibility to make all reasonable adjustments to the workplace to accommodate a pregnancy and the worker's subsequent return.

Many parents will bemoan the axing of the baby bonus from 1 March 2014, as outlined in the recent Federal Budget. About 28,000 families would miss out completely under the change while another 20,000 are expected to instead take Paid Parental Leave (PPL). So how does PPL work?

In my last post, I reported on a visit to the Sistine Chapel, and focused on the ceiling but there is much more to the Chapel than that, since most of the wall space is filled with wonderful 16th century paintings in jewel-bright colours. The most dramatic occupies the whole end wall, Michelangelo’s Last Judgment, painted 1536-41, more than twenty years after he painted the ceiling frescos. This is full of swirling energy and turmoil, with Christ hurling sinners into hell and raising the saved to paradise. It takes some effort to shift from the movement in the overall image to focus on the details - but when you do, one point in the bottom right corner has particular employment law resonance. In Hell, there is a portly figure with donkey’s ears and a large snake curled around him to cover his nakedness (actually, it is worse, but as this is a respectable professional blog I’ll leave it at that).  This is Minos, judge of the underworld, receiving the souls of the damned.  As a model, Michelangelo used Biagio de Cesena, the Pope’s Master of Ceremonies at the time, presumably without consent.  Michelangelo was always an irascible character, and Biagio was his loudest critic and objected to the many nude figures which Michelangelo included – but had his revenge in perpetuity.

As many of my clients know, I am taking a gap year in 2013, travelling the UK and Europe so my posts this year will have a travel theme. I have just finished 2 ½ weeks in Rome, where one of the top priorities of my wife and I was to see the Vatican Museums and the Sistine Chapel. You enter through a small door, onto a marble pavement which extends a couple of metres and then goes down 3 steps to the main floor. And as everyone knows about Michelangelo painting the ceiling, most visitors stop, and look up to stare, as soon as they get through the door, attention pretty much distracted from the steps by the sight of God creating the world, and creating Adam, and the brightly coloured portraits of sibyls and prophets. So, immediate WH&S issue: the risk of someone tumbling down the stairs is pretty high. And if the Work Health & Safety legislation applied, the Vatican would clearly have a duty to all these visitors to a workplace. At first glance, there is nothing in place to address the risk: no barriers, no high-vis markers on the edges of the marble steps, no prominent signs (no-one would look at them anyway!). It seems “all reasonably practicable steps” have not been taken to remove or minimise the risk.

I was recently asked to comment on an article for "In the Black" magazine (a CPA publication) on 'what makes a successful redundancy' - and I thought I'd share a snippet of what I said...

For the next 12 months I will be heading up the Employment Law and Business Migration team here at Coleman Greig, while Stephen Booth takes a sabbatical and ventures around Europe (in my opinion - a well deserved break after 25 years of practice!). If we are lucky we might hear from Stephen throughout the year - maybe even with a description of the picturesque locations he happens to be exploring - but for now it is probably best to review some of the latest developments in the employment law/immigration space over the holiday period!

A prominent Melbourne employment lawyer, Josh Bornstein, has suggested that we need to rethink how we deal with workplace bullying in legal terms. He says, surely correctly, that the “Brodie’s law” approach, criminalising bullying as akin to stalking, is more symbolic (and legislative “feel good”) than of real benefit, in the vast majority of cases. And he argues that we will never make headway against workplace bullying while it is perceived as a safety issue, essentially because an OH&S focus addresses processes and implementation, and in rare cases penalties for a business that handles a bullying issue very badly, but there is generally no private right of action. But would a much broader right to make a claim about bullying be suitably calibrated to address genuine cases, or would it open floodgates to many cases that are more about general disgruntlement or workplace politics than seriously inappropriate behaviour? As we’ve seen with unfair dismissals, despite the laudable goal to avoid imperatives for employers to pay “go away money”, the simple fact is that wherever there will be costs in money and time to defend claims, money will be paid to make them go away, even in cases of low merit.  And defining bullying for the purposes of a right to make a damages claim would be a particularly perilous minefield. And what that approach ignores is that real cases of bullying generally involve deep-seated cultural issues and behavioural traits of the workplaces, bully and victim.  Might we not achieve more by focussing directly on those?  Of course, in the short and medium term, that will work in decent workplaces but not reach the toxic ones.  And discrimination legislation has certainly permeated everyone’s consciousness because of the risk of claims.  A right of action for bullying might do the same, but at what cost?

Pay rates All award rates increased 2.9% as of 1 July. So if you pay at or close to award rates, or pay at an annual rate which is not far above award rates but which is intended to include all obligations, then it is a good idea to check the rates you pay against the revised pay rates in the award to make sure you comply, both with base rate and with the total due including overtime etc.    If you need assistance doing this “IR health check”, please give us a call.

There was a flurry of media attention in 2008 when Vivienne Dye launched claims against Commsec and the Commonwealth Bank, alleging persistent predatory sexual harassment (in some instances alleging conduct amounting to rape) by two named managers. The managers’ reputations were trashed. However, in the long run it is Ms Dye who has crashed and burned, as the Federal Court dismissed all her claims last month, after a case lasting 94 hearing days! The decision includes many details which would seem far fetched if you read them in a novel, including Ms Dye attending a work party wearing a white fur G-string – as you do!

Happy New Year to our blog readers! No resolutions here, but a reflection to begin the year: people can have an amazing lack of insight. Being an employment lawyer (or working in HR) broadens your life experience: you get to see people behaving in ways you wouldn’t believe if you read it in a book. Check out this random sample of recent unfair dismissal try-ons.

It is in the nature of our media-saturated world that crises occupy all attention for “15 minutes of fame”, and then subside again, so those not directly involved lose the track of the story, till the next crisis. So what has happened to the Qantas dispute?  Essentially, the wheels set in motion by the Qantas grounding, and the orders of FWA on 31 October, continue to turn, but out of sight.  There having been no private resolution within the 21 days allowed, the disputes are now set up for formal arbitration by FWA in March 2012.  The general expectation is that, when imposing a deal on the parties, FWA will not override Qantas’ management prerogative to the extent of interfering in decisions about off-shore operations and staffing.  Certainly it seems to be Qantas’ calculation that it will get a better deal out of FWA than directly with the unions, and by a route which precludes ongoing industrial action.

Retailers will very shortly be able to hire high school students on 90 minute casual after-school shifts, after Fair Work Australia rejected the appeal by the Shop Distributive Allied Employer’s Association (refer to previous blog). FWA wasn’t persuaded that the proposed variation of the three hour minimum engagement period under the General Retail Industry Award was “affected by error”. The decision, however, doesn’t mean an immediate start to 90 minute shifts because the Award was not formally varied, but the option shouldn’t be too far away! It is anticipated that 90 minute shifts will only be available where the employee and their parent or guardian agrees, and where employment for a longer period than the period of the engagement is not possible either because of the operational requirements of the employer, or the unavailability of the employee.

Fascinating to watch the developments in the Qantas dispute over the recent weeks. We’ve got out of the habit of watching a dispute on this scale, in a critical industry, with the added frisson of uncertainty over the operation of new legislation. The theatre of a commercial/industrial dispute such as this is something which anyone involved in negotiation or dispute resolution can appreciate. What step to take next, when to take it? How to calibrate it and what message will it send to the other players? How to play your cards close to your chest, while at the same time managing the audience (in this case via intense media interest)?

Beware the consultation and redeployment issues when making employees redundant. For a redundancy to be outside the unfair dismissal regime, it has to be a "genuine redundancy." Whether a redundancy is genuine depends on whether there is consultation as required by an applicable award, and whether any reasonable options for redeployment are offered to the employee.

Surely that's OK, if I do it in my own time from my own computer with the maximum privacy settings and only to a select group of 70? Not when the comments are particularly offensive, and the group includes 11 work colleagues, even when the employee has the sensitivity to block the access of the relevant boss.

Continuing on last week’s theme that “Redundancy is not a panacea”, I saw a decision last week, made particularly interested by the ATO’s involvement both as employer and taxman, so that the A to the Q above could be “When the ATO says so.” An ATO employee negotiated a voluntary redundancy then asked the ATO to treat it as a “genuine redundancy” to get the tax breaks involved. The ATO refused. She went to the AAT to argue the issue, the ATO opposed it, and she lost.

Retail employers nation-wide are rejoicing over their win, after a long-raging war, to hire casual students for as little as 90 minutes after school. But will the celebrations be short lived? As at 1 July 2011, the existing 3 hour casual minimum engagement period under the General Retail Award 2010 was due to be amended to 90 minutes. As at 1 July, full-time secondary students were to be eligible to enjoy shorter shifts.

While I don’t want to be quite as nihilistic as that at the prospect of more political “debate” on IR, seeing Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and Peter Reith manoeuvring last week about Coalition’s IR policy does suggest impending sound and fury, signifying not very much. Ever since the lead up to WorkChoices in 2005 and 2006, the political debate about this has diverged from reality because, once past the Howard Government’s radical step of nationalising the IR system, there has been much more continuity from WorkChoices (Mark II at least) to the Fair Work Act than you would imagine, given the heated rhetoric.

Just a few things to bear in mind, and get in order if need be, as 1 July approaches: Paid parental leave, pay increases, modern award transition and unfair dismissal salary cap.

Within the space of a week, both have been rocked by scandals, “out of the blue” according to media reports, arising from “conduct unbecoming” – abuse based on race in one case, and sexual harassment by a senior employee of a subordinate in the other.