The Fair Work Commission has reaffirmed the importance of employers complying with consultation requirements when making employees redundant, even during Covid-19. Failure to consult with an employee about the significant changes to their employment means employers cannot rely on the genuine redundancy exception to unfair dismissal enquiries.
Legislative Requirements of Genuine Redundancies
The requirements to establish a genuine redundancy are set out under s 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (NSW):
- The employer no longer requires the job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise;
- The employer has complied with any consultation obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement;
- It is not reasonable in the circumstances for the person to be redeployed within the employer’s enterprise of an associated entity.
Findings of the Fair Work Commission
The consultation requirement of genuine redundancies has been highlighted in two recent cases heard by the Fair Work Commission.
In Browne v MySharedServices  FWC 4445, the employee (Browne) was dismissed over the phone without prior consultation by his employer (MySharedServices). The employer relied on genuine redundancy grounds for dismissal. The Fair Work Commission found that whilst operational changes to the business had occurred as a result of Covid-19, the consultation requirement had not been met. Under the relevant modern award (Clerks Award 2009), MySharedServices were required to consult employees on any change that may have significant effect on their employment, including termination. As the consultation did not occur and there were no issues with the employees’ performance, the Fair Work Commission found the termination was an unfair dismissal.
A similar situation arose in the case Freebairn v TLJ Advisors and Accountants (2020) FWC 3915, where the employer failed to consult the employee (Freebairn) about the termination of her employment as a result of firm restructuring post Covid-19. Freebairn filed for unfair dismissal on grounds that no consultation had taken place and that if consultation had occurred she could have arranged to work reduced hours until the JobKeeper scheme kicked in shortly after. As a result, the Fair Work Commission agreed the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy because of the failure to comply with consultation requirement.
Employers must comply with the consultation requirements
Employers must remain vigilant in upholding consultation requirements when implementing redundancies, even in the wake of mass organisational shifts as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Consultations must be genuine discussions about the changes to employment and explain how the employer intends to mitigate such changes. In particular, consideration must also be given to how JobKeeper and other Covid-19 relief schemes impact relationships between employers and employees in relation to organizational restructuring.
We represent both employers and employees, so if you or your organisation needs further advice or assistance in relation to redundancies or dismissals, please call Etheringtons Solicitors on (02) 9963 9800 or via our contact form.
It is not uncommon for people to meet their partner in the workplace or employ their spouse or partner in their small business to provide additional support and reduce labour costs. What would happen to their employment if your relationship were to break down? Disputes may arise if your ex-partner starts causing problems in the workplace through improper behavior or dishonesty. In this blog, we review whether you can terminate your ex-partner’s employment and some considerations for the future.
Can I terminate my ex-partner’s employment?
You can terminate your ex-partner’s employment on the condition that the termination is lawful and would be for the same reasons as any other employee in your workplace, regardless of their relationship to you. There must a valid reason for their dismissal and this will vary depending on your individual circumstances.
If you wish to avoid having an unfair dismissal claim lodged with the Fair Work Commission against you, it is vitally important that the employment termination is:
- For a valid purpose
- Was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and
- Was not made for an unlawful reason.
Meaning of Unlawful Termination
The Fair Work Act 2009 states that an employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for an unlawful reason. Simply disliking your ex-partner and no longer wishing to see them in the workplace is not a valid reason to dismiss them. Examples of ‘unlawful reasons’ include dismissals based on:
- race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin;
- temporary absence from work because of illness or injury;
- trade union membership or participation in trade union activities outside working hours;
- the filing of a complaint, or the participation in proceedings, against the employer involving alleged violation of laws or regulations or recourse to competent administrative authorities; and
- absence from work during maternity leave or other parental leave.
Valid Reasons for Dismissal
A lawful and valid reason for dismissal will vary and it is advised that you seek legal advice before terminating an employee. In most cases, you may have a valid reason to terminate employment if your ex displays some of the following behavior:
- Inappropriate conduct such as harassment
- Creating conflict for clients or other employees
- Improper use of the company’s monies
- Not abiding by workplace policies
If you are satisfied that a valid reason for dismissal exists, you must ensure that you provide adequate notice, an opportunity to respond, and the reasons for dismissal. You should consider providing ‘warnings’ or offer mediation conferences to your ex before considering dismissal, as often their behaviour or performance may improve and you may be less likely to face an unfair dismissal claim.
You should also consider whether terminating your ex-partner’s employment may leave you vulnerable to a spousal maintenance claim. Spousal maintenance is where one partner provides financial support to the other partner upon the relationship breaking down. To learn more about spousal maintenance, see our blog here.
Contact Etheringtons Solicitors
Various employment and family law problems that stem from workplace relationships can lead to complicated legal repercussions. The team at Etheringtons solicitors are highly skilled in navigating both employment law and family law matters and are able to assist you every step of the way during your legal proceedings.
If you or someone you know needs help and would like to have a confidential no-obligation discussion, please call Etheringtons Solicitors on (02) 9963 9800 or send us a message via our contact form.
The term ‘consumer’ carries with it broad connotation of individuals who purchase goods and services, usually for a relatively low sum. However, with the new Australian Consumer Laws (‘ACL’) set to take effect from 1 July 2021, the definition of a ‘consumer’ could affect a greater number of transactions as they will be covered by the ACL consumer guarantees. In this blog, we provide an overview of the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’) and the changes set to take place this year.
What is the Australian Consumer Law?
The ACL is the primary area of law that regulate the sale of goods and services. The ACL applies nationally and in all States and Territories, and to all Australian businesses. The ACL is administered by the ACCC and state and territory consumer protection agencies and is enforced by all Australian courts and tribunals.
Under the ACL, products and services must meet strict requirements. For example, products must be safe, long lasting, lack faults, look acceptable, carry full ownership, be fit for purpose, match descriptions, have spare parts and repair facilities available and do everything someone would normally expect them to do. Likewise, services must be provided with acceptable skill and care or technical knowledge and taking all necessary steps to avoid loss and damage, be fit for purpose and be delivered within a reasonable time when there is no agreed end date.
The ACL provides consumers protection in the areas of:
- Unfair contract terms
- Consumer rights when buying goods and services
- Product safety
- Unsolicited consumer agreements covering door-to-door sales and telephone sales
- lay-by agreements
The ACL has previously defined a ‘consumer’ as someone who purchases goods or services for under $40,000 or the purchase of goods and services greater than $40,000 if they are acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption. However, the recent changes to the law will increase this threshold to capture all goods and services under $100,000.
The changes will also see the amendment of the definition of “consumer” under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act).
These changes come in response to a review conducted by Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand into the effectiveness of the ACL in protected the modern consumer. It found that inflation and the rising cost of goods and services meant that purchases that were previously covered by the ACL are no longer, leaving consumers unprotected.
In essence, this change in definition will operate to expand consumer protections afforded by the ACL to a greater number of consumers. Whilst this gives purchasers more rights and bargaining power, it increases the need of businesses to ensure that they are compliant with the new ACL requirements as more customers may be covered by its protections.
How do I prepare for these changes as a business?
These changes provide a good opportunity to assess your current goods or services and whether they are subject to the ACL. You should also conduct a thorough review of your current contracts, policies, terms and conditions and existing (and now new) obligations.
You should seek legal advice if you wish to find out more information about the changes, how they affect your business and to ensure your business is complying with its obligations under the ACL. The team at Etheringtons Solicitors are highly skilled in business law and are ready and willing to assist you with your enquiry. If you would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact one of our experienced solicitors on 9963 9800 or via our contact form. For more articles, please see our blog here.
Workplace surveillance and email monitoring have become the norm in organisations across Australia. However, many employees still do not understand their obligations or their rights when it comes to the use of computer technology in the workplace. Another issue arising out of the use of digital communication in the workplace is who owns correspondence that is sent from a work address?
The tension between an employee’s privacy and any potential restraint of trade conditions or copyright issues continue to be a source of contention in employment law, causing confusion for both parties. This blog will provide an overview regarding the law surrounding privacy and workplace surveillance, however if you are affected by this issue it is important to seek out legal advice.
The Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW) provides that a policy must be in place for an employer to undertake workplace computer surveillance. Employees must be given notice of that policy. Commonly, employers include a notice of surveillance in a new employee’s contract. However, if employers are introducing computer surveillance into the workplace they must provide employees at least 14 days written notice.
Under the Act the notice must include:
- the kind of surveillance to be carried out (i.e. computer, camera or tracking surveillance)
- how the surveillance will be carried out
- when the surveillance will start
- whether the surveillance will be continuous or intermittent; and
- whether the surveillance will be for a specified limited period or ongoing.
What does the Privacy Act 1988 say?
The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) is the national legislative body for regulating the handling of personal information by government agencies and organisations. The Australian Privacy Principles (APP) are enshrined in this Act, specially Principle 12, which states that if an APP entity (which includes Government agencies and private organizations) holds personal information about an individual, the entity must, on request, give the individual access to the information. It is worth noting that the Act itself does not distinctively cover surveillance in the workplace. The employee records exemption under this Act provides an exemption to adherence to the APP for employers in certain circumstances. This means that employers are allowed to collect and store employee’s personal information if it is directly related to the employee-employer relationship, or if it forms part of an employee record.
However, employers should not assume that all the information they hold that relates to an individual employee would constitute an employee record. For example, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) have given the example of financial correspondence received into an employee’s work email account. Whilst an employee’s bank details may fall within the meaning of ‘employee record’, the specific emails and their contents that an employee receives from their financial institution that is sent to their work email account, may not necessarily be part of an ‘employee record’ as it may not relate to the employment of the employee. Whether or not the content of emails sent or received by an employee forms part of their ‘employee record’ will always depend on the circumstances and you should seek advice regarding your particular case.
How do I know if my employer can view emails sent from my company email address?
If an employer has given notice that workplace emails are or can be placed under surveillance, then it is quite likely that your employer can view emails sent from your company email address. Most organisations have privacy and workplace surveillance policies that stipulate when and why your emails might be viewed by an employer.
If you are disputing your right to access to your personal emails on your work email accounts, the OAIC may have the jurisdiction to hear your complaint if you are arguing that the emails fall out of the employee record exemption prescribed in the Privacy Act. However, as mentioned previously, this is determined on a case by case basis and the law surrounding this area remains somewhat ambiguous. If you are unsure, it is best to seek legal advice. The team at Etheringtons Solicitors are skilled in employment law and are ready and willing to assist you with your enquiry. If you would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact one of our experienced solicitors on 9963 9800 or via our contact form. For more articles, please see our blog here.
The Federal Government is set to introduce a highly anticipated reform of industrial relations laws following a recent case that is now set to appear before the High Court of Australia. The new reforms include arrangements in relation to casual employees that are aimed at circumventing the ‘double dipping’ concern following the case of WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato. In this blog, we review the changes to the industrial relations laws and outline the case that lead to this controversial decision.
On 9 December 2020, the federal Government announced the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. The reforms include an arrangement for casual workers that could bestow upon them stronger rights for ongoing employment. However, it also limits the liability of employers for paying casual leave loadings as well as paying other benefits such as annual leave.
One key change is the introduction of a legal definition of ‘casual work’ under the Fair Work Act. It is worth noting that no definition currently exists in the Act and this definition could help clear up much ambiguity regarding the implication of casual working arrangements.
The Act will define a casual employee as a person who:
(a) is made an offer of employment by the employer on the basis that the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work; and
(b) the person accepts the offer on that basis.
Moreover, the changes also mandate that an employer must make a permanent part-time or full-time job offer to a casual employee with a regular pattern of hours if:
(a) the employee has been employed by the employer for a period of 12 months from the day the employment started; and
(b) during at least the last 6 months of that period, the employee has worked a regular pattern of hours on an ongoing basis which, without significant adjustment, the employee could continue to work as a permanent full-time or part-time employee (as the case may be).
However, the employer is not required to make this offer if (based on facts that are known or reasonably foreseeable at the time) they have reasonable grounds not to make the offer.
These proposed amendments will not be voted on until 2021.
WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato
The changes introduced by the Federal Government come after much concern for the financial welfare of Australian businesses following a recent decision by the Full Federal Court in the case of WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato. To read more about this case, read our article linked here.
The High Court of Australia has allowed WorkPac Pty Ltd special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Federal Court. The decision is not set to be handed down until mid-2021.
The Federal Government has said that the proposed amendments will address the ‘double- dipping problem created by the Rossato decision’, so casual workers will not be entitled to both the 25% casual loading as well as the permanent benefits package (comprising annual leave, personal leave, notice of termination or redundancy pay).
Get legal advice
With many ambiguous changes to employment law set to be introduced in the coming year, it is important to seek legal advice if you are unsure about your employment contract or concerned about your potential liability as an employer. You can contact the highly skilled employment law team at Etheringtons solicitors via our contact form or call 02 9963 9800 for a no-obligation discussion.
An employer’s potential liability for workplace discrimination arises before the first interview and exists whether or not a decision is made to hire a person.
A job interview is integral to the recruitment process and provides an opportunity for the employer to ask questions, check credentials and determine a prospective employee’s suitability for a position. It also provides reciprocal opportunities for candidates to find out more about the role and the organisation and to assess their interest in the position.
Naturally, both parties want to find the ‘right fit’ however the employer is largely in control of the interview process and may go about finding the right person in the wrong manner.
By asking a candidate certain ‘illegal’ questions during the interview process, employers risk breaching Commonwealth and / or State laws aimed to protect individuals against discrimination in the workplace.
So, what are illegal interview questions?
When interviewing a candidate for a position, the primary focus of the questions asked should be to assess the applicant’s inherent ability to perform the key functions of the role.
Employers should avoid asking questions about certain unlawful factors for which a candidate’s answer could be construed as determinative to the success, or otherwise, of his or her application. These include questions about age, gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion or social origin. Essentially, these matters are considered irrelevant in determining a person’s capacity to perform the role.
Even the most innocent questions (such as those that might be asked during the course of social conversation) could be considered unlawful during a formal interview. The following are some examples:
- How do you manage work with three children?
- How old are you?
- Does your disability prevent you from carrying out your job?
These questions have something in common – they are questions that might be asked of a particular category of applicants (those with children, over 50 years of age or with a disability) that would not necessarily be asked of other applicants.
Other questions that may result in a discrimination complaint include:
- What is your religion?
- Where were you born?
- Are you working at the moment?
- Have you had a workers’ compensation claim?
These questions are unnecessary when determining an applicant’s ability to carry out the duties required of the role and should be avoided. Deciding that an applicant is unsuited for the position based on an answer to one or more of these questions may result in discrimination action.
Asking the right questions
Potential claims for discrimination can be minimised by re-thinking your approach to how questions are asked and having a detailed job description to refer to during the interview process. This helps keep the interview on track and ensures only the essential requirements of the position are addressed.
Organisations are encouraged to implement a set of standard interview questions that focus on the key skills and requirements of the position. This may include asking applicants to demonstrate how their skills and personal qualities make them an ideal choice for the role. An effective way to achieve this is to ask for examples of how the applicant has achieved certain outcomes or reacted to particular situations in previous roles. For example, you might ask, ‘please explain how you managed an irate customer during your time as service representative with XYZ’.
Following are some examples of discriminatory questions, together with an alternative approach that can be used to obtain the necessary information from a candidate.
Injuries / physical disabilities
It may be necessary to discuss an applicant’s injuries or physical condition to determine objectively whether he or she would be able to safely perform, without personal risk or risk to others, the duties required.
Rather than asking directly about his or her condition, the interviewer should go through each element of the job and, where relevant, discuss what adjustments to the workplace might be required to assist the applicant perform these duties. Appropriate questions may include:
‘Are there any reasons why you may not safely be able to lift 5 kg?’
‘Are there any specific adjustments we would need to make so you could carry out the duties required?’
This demonstrates that the employer has genuinely considered the applicant who may be an ideal fit, with a few minor modifications to the workplace.
Asking an applicant his or her age is unlawful particularly if the employer is assuming that the person, due to age, lacks the energy, drive or technical ability to carry out the role. Basing questions on the applicant’s skills, experience and inherent ability to perform these tasks, rather than querying their age will help minimise a discrimination complaint. An appropriate question would be:
‘Tell me about your computer experience…what types of programs have you used?’
It is unlawful to discriminate against a candidate based on his or her family circumstances. Rather than asking applicants if they have children or family commitments, simply ask whether they are able to commit to the hours / days required of the position. For example:
‘The job will occasionally require you to work evenings and weekends – would this conflict with other commitments?’
Religion or Race
It is unlawful to rule out an applicant whom you assume will be unable to work weekends due to religion, race or culture. If the job requires weekend work, simply point out the required days and ask the applicant whether he or she would have any issues working these days.
Asking an applicant if he or she is currently working could be perceived as discrimination on the grounds of employment, unemployment or receiving a pension. Instead, ask when the applicant would be available to start work.
Avoiding workplace discrimination starts before the recruitment process and continues throughout the employment relationship (including opportunities for career progression), during workplace investigations and termination processes.
Framing questions appropriately to minimise potential action for unfair discrimination and to give candidates an opportunity to demonstrate whether they can perform the job requires sound procedures and ensuring those involved in the recruitment process are aware of their obligations.
If you or someone you know wants more information or needs help or advice, please contact us on (02) 9963 9800 or via our contact form here.