In NSW, each year approximately 200,000 potential jurors are randomly selected from the NSW Electoral Roll and included on a jury list. Approximately 150,000 of these people are sent a jury summons notice at some point in the year. This notice will require them to attend Court where they may be selected as a juror for a specific trial.
Happy 2017! The start of a new year is usually a time many of us reflect on what we would like to achieve in our personal lives in the year to come. However, many of us don’t take the time to reflect on our work or professional lives in the same way. With the new year in full swing, we thought now was a perfect opportunity to consider some of the leading themes emerging in the employment law arena already this year, with a view to discussing some of the steps you can take to ensure your business stays on the right track.
Most employees will deal with some sort of confidential information belonging to their employer, during the course of their employment. Confidential information may include client or supplier lists, price information, strategic business plans, databases, details of tenders, inventions or product information and so on. As a result, employers are increasingly concerned that they protect their confidential information from misuse by employees and especially departing employees. In this article, we look at how employers can safeguard themselves from employees misusing confidential information and discuss a recent Federal Court of Australia decision on this key issue.
On Wednesday and Thursday last week Shana Schreier-Joffe of our office was invited to attended and present at the Global Mobility and Skills Forum in Adelaide. This was an international conference designed to explore the challenges facing business in dealing with skill acquisition and an increasingly mobile workforce.
There were numerous very experienced and thought provoking speakers at the conference, however one of the speakers, Aaron LePoidevin made a number of comments that we think require further discussion and consideration.
According to a report released by the Senate Education and Employment References Committee entitled “A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders” dated 17 March 2016 there are approximately 1.4 million temporary visa holders working in Australia who are covered by the national Fair Work system. Startlingly, many visa holders experience a significant amount of employment mistreatment. The Fair Work Ombudsman, Natalie James, recently observed that migrant worker complaints of mistreatment have soared in recent years, and sponsorship breaches were often deliberate acts of exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Similarly, Professor Allan Fels of the newly appointed Federal Government Ministerial Taskforce (“the Taskforce”) established to protect migrant workers commented that the exploitation of migrant workers in Australia was “systemic” and “deeply embedded in the practices of some businesses”.
It is no secret that the composition of Australia’s population is much older today than it has been in the past, and both the number and proportion of older people is growing steadily. In 2014, the number of people aged 65 and over was 3.4 million, a three-folder increase on the decade prior. This trend is expected to continue, particularly as the “baby boomer generation” ages. Based on population projections by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, by 2064 there will be 9.6 million aged 65 and over, and 1.9 million aged 85 and over. Against this demographic background and the increase in sophisticated technologies, the government has made it a financial imperative to lift employment participation rates and boost productivity including by offering incentives to employers who employ older people. The only problem is that the definition of an older worker seems to be getting younger, as employers tend to implement cost cutting measures by shedding older workers through redundancy and other change management programs.
Employers are not always aware of their obligations in relation to privacy in the workplace. The invasion of employee privacy can occur in a number of different ways including through records and information, physical and electronic surveillance and monitoring. In Australia, several different legislative instruments govern how employers deal with employee privacy issues and different rules apply depending on the use of such information prior to and during employment.
From an organisational perspective, the advancement of digital workplaces and technology has increased the amount of information employers can access about employees. In addition the line between work and employees’ private lives has been considerably blurred in recent times as a result of social media and the breakdown of traditional working hours and modes of work.
Employers generally want to ensure that a potential employee is honest, trustworthy and have the right attributes for the role. A prudent employer will also want to ensure that they are not employing someone who may not be the right fit for the business, or who does not have the skills and attributes that it requires. The costs associated with the performance management and termination of an employee who should not have been offered the role to begin with, are far outweighed by the minimal investment of time and effort involved in appropriate pre-employment screening. We receive several enquiries regarding when and how an employer can conduct pre-employment screening and have considered some of the issues such screening may cause in this article.
The implementation of workplace drug and alcohol testing is a sensitive and complex issue. It is not uncommon for employers in certain industries such as mining, transportation and correctional services, to impose mandatory alcohol and illicit drugs testing for all employees, however careful consideration needs to be given to the corresponding legal obligations owed by an employer vis-à-vis the employees’ privacy and safety. More and more often, the industrial Courts and Tribunals routinely accept that random testing in the workplace is an intrusion on the privacy of the individual and are reluctant to condone such practices other than on genuine health and safety grounds.
People spend a significant amount of time with each other at work, it is therefore perhaps unsurprising that workplace relationships are common with which many employers need to deal. Most employers are often mortified at the prospect of having to discuss intimate or personal details with their employees and usually adopt the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. However, not only can a workplace romance impact on other employees, if such relationships sour, they can develop into bullying and sexual harassment claims, leaving the business and human resource professionals left to pick up the pieces. It is thus important for employers to know how to effectively manage these situations and ensure reasonable measures are in place so the business is not adversely affected.
Union right of entry laws are a cornerstone of our industrial relations system. Unfortunately, many employers can be caught out when a union official tries to visit their premises. It is especially vital for employers to understand their rights and obligations in this area, as unions do not have an unfettered right to enter, but nor can the employer improperly obstruct entry for a proper purpose.
What happens when an employee resigns from their employment and they then advise you they wish to rescind their resignation and continue with their employment. Now, if the employee is an asset to your company you may be feeling quite relieved. However, on the other hand, if the employee really hasn’t been a suitable fit for the organisation or is a poor performer then you may be reluctant to accept their continued employment. In this update we consider whether notice provided in this manner is valid and whether an employer has any obligation to accept an employee’s change of mind after providing their resignation.