The mobile phone is now ubiquitous and almost everyone has one. Like parents with teenagers, who struggle to engage with their children who are constantly on the phone, how do employers ensure that employees are not placing themselves and the business in danger by using their mobile devices?
Many employers struggle with employees who use their mobile phones excessively during work hours or employees making excessive personal calls on their mobile phones while at work. Employers should also consider the safety implications of employees who are required to drive as part of their duties, and the use of mobile devises.
As many of our readers would be aware, the second Thursday of September in each year, is a national day dedicated to asking family, friends and colleagues the simple question: “Are you okay?”. Given that Thursday 8 September has just gone by, and in light of growing global awareness of depression and suicide, mental health issues and domestic or family abuse, we thought it would be fitting to write a client alert about this topic.
For employers, casual employment has a number of distinct advantages. It provides significant flexibility, allowing employers to rapidly adjust staffing levels when required. For employees, casual employment may provide similar opportunities for flexibility through greater work-life balance and ensuring that personal commitments and family responsibilities can be sustained. If casual employment provides benefits all-round, why is this mode of employment such a contentious industrial relations issue.
Most people love a chat. However, understandably, most managers and employers often avoid having difficult conversations with their employees because it can be awkward, confrontational and time consuming. Unfortunately, avoiding what needs to be said can grow into a major issue causing legal risks and reducing an employer’s ability to successfully defend legal claims should they arise.
Often disputes between departing employees and their employer result in a settlement or agreement. Some employers also wish to provide additional benefits to departing employees as a show of goodwill or to ensure the employee leaves in an amicable manner. Should these agreements, or additional benefits be subject to the employee agreeing not to commence any legal proceedings against the employer? Most employers would surely respond that this would be desirable. It is not uncommon for employers to require their employees in such circumstances to enter into a form of release.
There is widespread uncertainty as to the form any such release agreement should take and the default is to use a deed of release. We receive many queries from employers about whether it is appropriate to use a deed of release and what can be included in the deed. Understanding the importance of how a deed of release can assist and protect your business can be highly beneficial.
It is not uncommon that we receive a query as to whether employers can direct employees to take annual leave. This often arises when the business shuts down usually over the Christmas and New Year season. Conversely, it is not uncommon that we receive a query as to whether, and in what circumstances, employees are able to trade in a portion of their annual leave entitlement for cash.
The answer to both questions is far from straightforward. The industrial relations landscape in Australia does permit employers to direct employees to take leave under certain specified conditions. In addition, some employees may be entitled to “cash out” their leave, subject to specific requirements which apply under legislation and various industrial instruments.
During difficult economic times it is not uncommon for companies to face an array of monetary hardships, and in some cases, be compelled to or voluntarily take steps towards wind up the affairs of the business. Indeed, company directors and business owners have positive obligations under Australian Corporations Law to prevent insolvent trading. Whilst in some situations, the financial woes of an organisation can be saved through various forms of borrowing and other debt arrangements, this is not always the case. Current statistics indicate that approximately 10,000 companies go broke in Australia each year. When a company becomes insolvent and cannot meet its debt obligations, what happens to its employees, and any employee entitlements that are unpaid?
The election has come and gone, and we are all settling down with somewhat reduced Liberal Party presence in power. With the Liberal party staying in office we thought it was appropriate that we provide a brief recap on some of the Coalition’s key election policies in relation to employment and industrial relations. We also provide an update on a number of key employment changes since the election took place.
In last week’s client alert we discussed the significant issue for employers of dealing with a long-term ill or injured employee. As was noted in the article, most employers in our experience generally want to do the right thing when it comes to dealing with employees who are ill or injured and are unable to return to full time pre-injury employment. This however needs to be balanced against the interests of the business, and in some cases it is simply impractical for the employment to continue. In those circumstances, it is however not simply a matter of dismissing the employee on the basis of the injury or illness for which they have been absent from the workplace.
It might surprise some of our readers but one of the most difficult employment issues for any employer to deal with, is a long term ill or injured employee. There is a significant amount of confusion and lack of understanding regarding the rights of both the employee and the employer in these circumstances. Most employers want to do the right thing when it comes to dealing with employees who are ill or injured and are unable to return to full time pre-injury employment, but need to balance the interests of the employee with the needs of the business.
Requests by employees for flexible working arrangements have become more and more popular since the introduction of this right as part of the National Employment Standards. Traditionally, such requests were most common amongst working mothers and employees with carer responsibilities. Nowadays it is common for all types of employees to utilise flexible working arrangements for a variety of different reasons. In our experience, many employers are more than willing to consider and, where they are able to do so, accommodate requests for flexible working arrangements. In some cases, however, the operational demands of the business simply do not permit an employer to agree to such requests.
Do I need to have a probationary period in my contract of employment? What is the difference between a probationary period and the minimum employment period? What does a probationary period actually mean? These are some of the questions we are routinely asked in relation to what is normally a fairly standard contractual term.
In our experience, there is considerable confusion about the difference between a probation period and how this relates to the minimum employment period in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FW Act”).