Changing gears for a winning culture

There is plenty of research out there that tells us that the 1900’s command and control approach to management just doesn’t work in the modern world where change is constant and people want answers and results now.

If we are going to get true employee engagement and high performance with today’s and future generations, we need to fundamentally change the management model to one based on leadership and values-based behaviours that deliver trust and inspiration rather than just process control and risk management which really only deliver compliance. This is what study after study tells us.

It means business leaders need to change gears and in doing so reimagine their business culture and language from:

  • human resources to human beings
  • risk control to trust
  • process control to relationship optimisation
  • management to leadership
  • tasks to behaviours
  • outputs to outcomes
  • compliance to engagement
  • command to inspiration
  • structure to flexibility
  • reactive to resilient

It is a big adjustment and it is easy to fall back into the traditional management norm that has been drummed into us for all those years.

That is why it is so important to have a clear vision about where you are going and clear values and behaviours that say how you are going to go about doing that and then holding everyone accountable for modelling those every day, most importantly yourself.

Be prepared to challenge and be challenged, listen to what your people have to say and learn from that. It is amazing what a difference it can make to performance, engagement, innovation and wellbeing.

Ready to change gears?

 

What might the new casual conversion provisions mean for business?

As part of the 4 yearly review of modern awards, the Fair Work Commission has decided to insert casual conversion provisions into the 85 modern awards that currently do not have provisions of this sort.

These provide a right for casual employees engaged on a regular and systematic basis to apply for conversion to full-time or part-time employment subject to a number of conditions as follows:

  • a qualifying period of 12 calendar months;
  • a qualifying criterion that the casual employee has over the qualifying period worked a pattern of hours on an ongoing basis which, without significant adjustment, could continue to be performed in accordance with the full-time or part-time employment provisions of the relevant award;
  • the employer must provide all casual employees (whether they become eligible for conversion or not) with a copy of the casual conversion clause within the first 12 months after their initial engagement; and
  • a conversion may be refused on the grounds that:
    • it would require a significant adjustment to the casual employee’s hours of work to accommodate them in full-time or part-time employment in accordance with the terms of the applicable modern
      award, or
    • it is known or reasonably foreseeable that the casual employee’s position will cease to exist, or
    • the employee’s hours of work will significantly change or be reduced within the next 12 months, or
    • on other reasonable grounds based on facts which are known or reasonably foreseeable.

Please note that, at this point in time, awards have not been varied and the decision is therefore not operational.

Where this decision differs from  casual conversion provisions that are already in other modern awards is that:

  • the qualifying period is commonly 6 months rather than the 12 month period stated in the new decision
  • the relevant awards have a statement that an employer “must not unreasonably refuse” a request for conversion but there is no reference to the sorts of circumstances that might reasonably justify refusal (as set out in the new decision)
  • there are some variances in procedural requirements between the old and the new
  • existing casual conversion provisions continue to have force.

So what does it all mean?

Regardless of the industry you are in, every employer who has casual employees working regular and systematic hours over a prolonged period of time should review those arrangements and consider whether the past/existing working pattern and foreseeable future working pattern would justify conversion to full-time or part-time employment.

There is also a concern that, while an employee in a small business (less than 15 employees) is not eligible to make a claim of unfair dismissal until they have completed 12 months service (or 6 months in the case of larger businesses), there could be a spike in General Protection/Adverse Action claims where an employee exercises or intends to exercise their right to request casual conversion and perceives that they are disadvantaged because of that request or intention (eg in reduction of hours, variation of shifts to interrupt a regular working pattern or even discontinuation of employment). There is no qualifying period for these types of claims so employers beware.

The final point that we wish to make here is that security of employment is a significant issue in our community today and that is a key factor in attracting and retaining good people who’ll do a good job for you. If you want a great business, trust them and give them that security.

Ridgeline HR educating young people on workplace rights

This morning, we ran the first of our “Your Workplace Rights” briefings for secondary students and first up were Year 10 students at Melba College about to go out on work experience.

The briefing covered pay and conditions, National Employment Standards, Modern Awards and Enterprise Agreements and the roles of the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman. The presentation included links to online information resources, tools and calculators that anyone can use to be better informed about their rights, entitlements and obligations.

This pro bono service has been launched for all Maroondah secondary schools as part of our contribution to improving community wellbeing in the City of Maroondah.

Penalty rates decision to be phased in

The Fair Work Commission has announced transitional arrangements for implementing the recent decisions to reduce penalty rates for work on Sundays and Public Holidays across a variety of awards.

Sunday penalty rates

The reductions in Sunday penalty rates are being phased in in annual instalments over 3 to 4 years depending on the award and are timed to occur on 1 July at the same time as any increases in award wages occurring from the Annual Wage Review process. The schedule for each award is as follows.

Fast Food Industry Award 2010

Full-time and part-time employees – Level 1 only

1 July 2017: 150 per cent > 145 per cent

1 July 2018: 145 per cent >135 per cent

1 July 2019: 135 per cent >125 per cent

Casual employees (inclusive of casual loading) – Level 1 only

1 July 2017: 175 per cent > 170 per cent

1 July 2018: 170 per cent > 160 per cent

1 July 2019: 160 per cent > 150 per cent

Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010

Full-time and part-time employees

1 July 2017: 175 per cent > 170 per cent

1 July 2018: 170 per cent > 160 per cent

1 July 2019: 160 per cent > 150 per cent

Casual employees – unchanged at 175% including casual loading

General Retail Industry Award 2010

Full-time and part-time employees

1 July 2017: 200 per cent > 195 per cent

1 July 2018: 195 per cent > 180 per cent

1 July 2019: 180 per cent > 165 per cent

1 July 2020: 165 per cent > 150 per cent

Casual employees (inclusive of casual loading)

1 July 2017: 200 per cent > 195 per cent

1 July 2018: 195 per cent > 185 per cent

1 July 2019: 185 per cent > 175 per cent

Pharmacy Industry Award 2010

Full-time and part-time employees

1 July 2017: 200 per cent > 195 per cent

1 July 2018: 195 per cent > 180 per cent

1 July 2019: 180 per cent > 165 per cent

1 July 2020: 165 per cent > 150 per cent

Casual employees (inclusive of casual loading)

1 July 2017: 225 per cent > 220 per cent

1 July 2018: 220 per cent > 205 per cent

1 July 2019: 205 per cent > 190 per cent

1 July 2020: 190 per cent > 175 per cent

Public Holiday penalty rates

This decision effects the above 4 awards plus the Restaurant Industry Award 2010.

In all of these awards , the penalty rate for work on a public holiday is changed with effected from 1 July 2017 to

Full-time/part-time:  225%

Casual:  250%

One of the reasons given for phasing in the Sunday penalty rate cuts over such a prolonged period was that “take home pay” orders would not be an available option for workers whose take home pay was reduced as a result of implementation of this decision. The FWC’s rationale is that annual wage increases will significantly, if not totally, offset reductions in penalty rates.

This is likely to be a factor in future Annual Wage Reviews.

It is understood that some unions may seek judicial review of the penalty rates decision and, should that occur, it is possible that implementation could be further delayed.

 

Fair Work Commission hands down 3.3% wage increase

The Fair Work Commission today issued its decision in the 2016-2017 Annual Wage Review.

As we predicted, the decision came in at 3.3% (about midway in our predicted range of 3 – 3.5%).

That takes the Federal Minimum Wage to $694.90 per week, or $18.29 per hour with effect from 1 July 2017.

This constitutes an increase of $22.20 per week to the weekly rate or 59 cents per hour to the hourly rate based on a 38 hour week.

The increase will also apply to modern award rates effective from 1 July 2017.

In the decision summary, the Panel stated: “In previous Reviews, the Panel has accepted that if the low paid are forced to live in poverty then their needs are not being met and that those in full-time employment can reasonably expect a standard of living that exceeds poverty levels. While we have not departed from that position, we acknowledge that the increase we propose to award will not lift all award-reliant employees out of poverty, particularly those households with dependent children and a single-wage earner. However, to grant an increase to the NMW and award minimum rates of the size necessary to immediately lift all full-time workers out of poverty, or an increase of the size proposed by some parties, is likely to have adverse employment effects on those groups who are already marginalised in the labour market, with a corresponding impact on the vulnerability of households to poverty due to loss of employment or hours.

The level of increase we have decided upon will not lead to inflationary pressure and is highly unlikely to have any measurable negative impact on employment. It will, however, mean an improvement in the real wages for those employees who are reliant on the NMW and modern award minimum wages and an improvement in their relative living standards.”

Employers need to review employees’ wages to ensure that they continue to receive at least what they would be entitled to under the relevant award.

Those who have enterprise agreements in place need to check whether the agreement provides for passing on of the Annual Wage Review decision or whether they need to adjust wages because wages provided for under the Award will fall below the new award rates from 1 July 2017.

 

Will your termination pass the “3 tents test”?

Having been in the field of human resources management for over 30 years, there have been plenty of occasions where I have had to consider disciplinary action and termination of employment as remedies for misconduct.

In doing so, we need to consider fairness from a couple of angles:

  • Substantive fairness which requires that the action taken would not be harsh, unjust or unreasonable and
  • Procedural fairness which is about ensuring that due process has been followed and the principles of natural justice have been complied with

A process that I use to consider the substantive fairness of an action is to assess them against the “3 tents” namely:

  • Content: what actually happened, ensuring that you are aware of the facts of events that have given rise to consideration of action?
  • Intent: was the action or dereliction of duty or other offence deliberate or was it due to a misunderstanding or a heat of the moment thing and is it in or out of character for the individual concerned?
  • Extent: what was the effect of the action or dereliction of duty or other offence on the business and/or employees and/or other parties?

Of course there are the procedural elements to attend to as well but ensuring that the action that you propose will stand up to the “3 tents test” is a good start.

7 steps to effective policies

One of the most common requests we get at Ridgeline HR is for assistance in developing HRM policies and procedures for our clients.

Many businesses think that simply having a policy is enough to demonstrate compliance but there is actually a lot more to it than that as businesses too often find out the hard way.

It is not much good having a policy if it is not practised in fact and the fact is that, if a business doesn’t follow it’s own policies, it automatically has a compliance problem.

And there is quite a bit of work involved in ensuring that policies are both appropriate and managed in the right way to achieve their objectives.

There are 7 steps to effectively implementing policies:

  1. Be clear about why the policy is necessary(and, if it isn’t, don’t do it).
  2. Ensure that the policy aligns in content and presentation with your vision, values and strategy (don’t create contradictions).
  3. Communicate the policy appropriately to everyone to whom it has application (on launch and progressively through inductions, refreshers etc as necessary).
  4. Train people who have roles to play in application of the policy in how to perform those roles in the right way.
  5. Assess risks (eg people who might have potential to breach the policy or need additional support to comply with it) and implement appropriate risk management strategies.
  6. Consult people and review practice regarding the policy to ensure that it is working as intended.
  7. Review the policy annually to take account of any legislative or best practice developments as well as organisational experiences to continuously improve it and ensure ongoing compliance – return to Step 1.

Perhaps the thing that I find most remarkable about most organisations which focus on risk management is that they don’t actually assess risks that exist in their organisations when they implement a policy. See Step 5 above.

There is too often a mentality that, if the rules are communicated and an individual then doesn’t follow those rules, the risk is transferred from the business to that individual.

For organisations that might be in that space, I suggest that you consider why the policy is needed in the first place – ie what purpose (other than complying with a legal obligation) does it serve in the management of people?

Or, to put it another way, why did it become a legal obligation in the first place?

Do your policies exist for policies’ sake or do they have a positive impact on your people and culture?