Employers are required to ensure the work health and safety of workers while at work. Not only is work health and safety within the workplace a legal requirement for employers, but workplace injuries can have a significant impact on a business and severe consequences for all workplace participants. Significant workplace injuries can have a lasting negative effect on the business through reduced productivity, lost clients, low staff morale, traumatised staff and the associated reputational costs.
Unpaid internships are increasingly becoming the default way of beginning a professional career in Australia. Last May, we wrote about the increased use of volunteer and unpaid workers by employers and the potential legal issues surrounding the use of unpaid work arrangements.
By way of summary, it is important to remember that some unpaid work arrangements are permissible at law, while others are not. Whether an unpaid work arrangement is lawful under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FWA”) depends on whether an employment relationship exists or whether the arrangement involves a vocational placement for the purposes of training.
There have been a number of interesting legal matters heard by our judicial system within the employment law area in the last quarter. In this legal briefing, we provide an overview of two informative and instructive cases for employers, each dealing with their own unique and distinct employment law issue. In addition, we provide a timely update as to the progress of the union movement’s appeal to the Federal Court of Australia in the penalty rates decision that was handed down earlier this year.
For larger organisations, or employers who engage a multifaceted workforce, an enterprise agreement (“EA”) can be a very sensible and practical instrument to simplify the terms and conditions of employment for its workforce. It is not uncommon for employers to have a number of modern awards applying to their employees and thus creating complexity and administrative difficulties. In addition, as modern awards are not focused on individual businesses but apply across industry, many of the terms are often difficult and costly to implement and on the whole can be a challenge for a business to ensure compliance.
The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 (“The Bill”) has passed the Parliament, after the House of Representatives yesterday accepted amendments made in the Senate. The new law will apply from the day after the Bill receives royal assent, except for the new franchisor and holding company liability provisions (discussed below) which will start six weeks later.
The Bill was introduced as a response to the underpayments and exploitation of vulnerable workers within some of the 7/11 franchisees as well as similar subsequent scandals with Caltex, Yogurberry, Pizza Hut and Dominos. The Bill will introduce a number of initiatives to increase deterrence and punishments in relation to systematic exploitation of vulnerable workers. It also strengthens the power of the workplace regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Hiring a new employee is a crucial decision in any business. However, deciding on the most appropriate employment relationship for a growing business can be a daunting prospect. With so many types of employment arrangements now available such as full-time and part-time permanent employment, casual employment, temporary employment, internships and fixed term employment to name a few, each with their own respective advantages and disadvantages, it can be difficult to know which is the most appropriate arrangement to use for your business. It is crucial for employers to understand the differences between the respective ways in which an employee can be engaged, so as to enable the business to make an appropriate decision regarding the make-up of its workforce. In addition, incorrectly classifying an employment relationship can have serious detrimental consequences. In this article, we provide a summary of some of the most popular employment arrangements and how they can be used.
The termination of the employment relationship is one of the most challenging and frequently litigated areas in employment law. Unsurprisingly, the first half of 2017 has been no exception. There have been numerous cases go before our judicial system which have raised nuanced, and in some respects untested questions of law to be determined. In this legal briefing, we provide a recap on three exceptionally informative and instructive cases for employers, each dealing in their own way with a unique and distinct issue in relation to termination of employment.
With the arduous task of conducting performance appraisals out of the way, many employers understandably think the hard yards have been done. Although carrying out performance reviews may necessitate both positive and negative conversations with employees, depending on the kind of feedback being provided, many employers often disregard a fundamental and imperative step in the process to consolidate such discussions.
Phew – annual Performance Reviews done! This is an often heard at this time of year. Unfortunately, performance management and annual or bi-annual reviews instill dread in both the employee and managers tasked with conducting performance reviews. However, despite the angst and stress that accompanies performance reviews, not much else is achieved as a result of the review, other than to tick the relevant box stating they have been done. This surely cannot be the purpose of performance reviews. It certainly does not constitute appropriate performance management.
The beginning of the financial year marks a number of important to changes to the employment law area. These changes, relate to minimum wages, penalty rates, the unfair dismissal threshold, annual leave and the Fair Work Information Statement. A summary of the changes to come into force from 1 July 2017 are outlined below.
Some employees hardly take any personal leave, and continue to accrue their personal leave days each year. However, on the other end of the spectrum, some employees appear to take vast amounts of sick leave, and often in excess of the statutory minimum of 10 days paid personal leave each year. Interestingly and possibly not surprising, a recent workplace investigation found that about 50% of all unplanned absenteeism was not medically related and costs businesses a staggering $33 billion annually. In this regard, the difficulty faced by employers is the ability to identify the reasons for sick leave, address any issues that may be a relevant factor in an employee taking “serial sickies” and dealing with the issue in an effective manner.
Disciplinary action for poor or inappropriate performance is all too often seen in very one-dimensional terms. Often, it can be a fantastic opportunity for the business to address difficult issues in a constructive and ultimately extremely cost effective way. However, in most circumstances the use of warnings serves only to alienate and disincentivise employees, to the extent that they either leave the business or the business terminates the employment. When it comes to disciplinary action in the workplace, it is our experience that many employers seem to limit themselves to the use of only warnings or dismissal even though there may be a range of other options available to employers.