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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As practicing employment lawyers it always surprises us how businesses are bought and sold, without so much as a pause to consider the employees concerned. The first lawyers to be contacted and involved are the corporate lawyers. They are well versed in merges and acquisitions, tax and finance matters and ensuring the financial and contractual obligations of the parties are considered and the fine print of the purchase and sale agreement is carefully drafted. However, no or very little consideration is given to the most important asset of any business, its people.
Many people believe that if they do not have a written employment contract, they are not bound by a contract with their employer at all. This is a common mistake, as an employment contract exists whether written or not, the moment the employer and employee agree on terms of employment. The contract terms can be either express, that is written or verbally agreed, or implied by law, or a combination of both.
It is common for employers to have written contracts of employment setting out the express contractual terms of the employment relationship, and the duties owed by the employee when performing work.
It is perhaps not surprising that, at one point or another, a need will arise at the workplace for an investigation – formal or informal – regarding a complaint or grievance about a work related matter. A workplace investigation is not only a best practice procedure available to an employer when needing to get to the heart of a workplace issue, be it about performance, absenteeism, culture, conduct, safety or otherwise. In some instances, investigations may sometimes also be legally required.
In March 2015, two former directors of ABN AMRO Australia Holdings Limited (“AAAH”) successfully argued that severance and other beneficial bonus entitlements owed to them under AAAH policies, which had not been paid to them on termination, ought to have been paid by their former employer.
Without even realising it, we now accept that what would otherwise be a private conversation may in fact be recorded. Many of the day to day exchanges we have in society may be recorded for the benefit of record keeping, or simply for training, coaching and customer services purposes.
With the advent of smartphones and other like technologies, recording devices are no longer restricted to being specialised pieces of equipment. They are literally at our fingertips. However, this does not mean that it is necessarily lawful to record a conversation without the knowledge and consent of one or more parties to the conversation.