You’re kidding me …..

You’re kidding me …..

Latest News & Events

You’re kidding me …..

money changing hands
Employers might like to think that what happens with an employee outside work is of no concern to them and they have no responsibilities in that regard but is that totally true?

The issue

Last week, a client called me to enquire about what rights they had in relation to an employee who had failed to attend for work, failed to notify them and failed to take the call or respond to their call to his mobile phone.

When I delved down into the situation, I learned that:

  • the business has more than 15 staff
  • the employee is a young man who has completed an apprenticeship with them and been with them for about 4 years 
  • another of his family members with whom he lives also works in the business
  • the employee would normally come to work with that other family member who did come to work that day and told the employer that this employee was still in bed
  • it was not characteristic for the employee to do this and it hadn’t happened before
  • they had noticed a deterioration in his attitude and had to speak with him about his performance recently
  • things were a bit quiet for the business
  • there was no record of any disciplinary action eg no formal warnings or anything for that sort
  • they didn’t have any disciplinary procedure

So what advice should I have provided?

Being a large business employer brings procedural responsibilities

As much as we might think that the 15 employee threshold for a business to be considered a large business employer under the Fair Work Act 2009 is grossly unfair (which it is), those are the rules and we have to live with them.

This means that the employer in this case has to be much more conscious of going through the right process in any actions that they might take against an employee than a small business employer would. Those processes need to be fair and provide the employee with the opportunity to respond to any allegations made against them and any actions proposed plus decisions need to be evidence-based – on the balance of probabilities – if they are going to be defensible in the event of a formal complaint being made eg of adverse action or unfair dismissal.

There is now also the added factor of psychosocial hazards which include “poor organisational justice”.

 There was a vulnerability here because the employer had neither the policies and procedures nor the experience and skills to be able to deal appropriately with this issue in a demonstrably fair way.

Where the external environment comes in

I made note of the fact that the employer had said that this hadn’t happened before with this employee but they had noticed a deterioration in his attitude of late. I then asked whether they had any knowledge of anything going on in his life that might account for that either directly or through the other family member that worked with them.

This didn’t draw a great reaction – there was an immediate protest along the lines of: “You’re kidding me! Employers can’t be responsible for what happens with employees outside work, they have a job to do and they either turn up and do it or they can go.”

Well, I had to say: “sorry but it isn’t that simple”.

What is happening with an employee outside work can impact on:

  • the employee’s state of mind and physical, emotional and mental health and
  • their related fitness to attend for work and to perform their duties to the desired level and 
  • the employee’s attendance for work and
  • their relationships at work and outside work plus
  • there could be things going on at work which are also having an impact. 

Of course, I told her that she isn’t responsible for the employee’s behaviour outside of work but I also said that she needed to take into account factors that might be affecting his attitude and performance whether they were work-related or not.

This is especially the case when there had been a noticeable change in the employee’s attitude and behaviour, there hadn’t been any such problems in the past and no record of disciplinary action. I told her to be curious and find out what has caused that.

That gives the opportunity to deal with what the real underlying problems are rather than just treating the symptoms (ie deteriorating attitude and unnotified absence). Then you can hold the employee accountable for whatever commitments flow from that.

We also know that sometimes an employee is having a tough time in life and by being curious and non-judgmental, we might find out something that is important – like a domestic violence situation that the employee might need help with. 

Bottom line – approaching these situations with curiosity and kindness will deliver much better results than just disciplining people.

Please call us on 0438 533 311 or email enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au if you want to explore how we might be of assistance with any issues like this in your business.

 

 

 

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

0438 533 311

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH

The results are in – what next?

The results are in – what next?

Latest News & Events

The results are in – what next?

money changing hands

The Albanese Government has had a landslide victory at the federal election – so what does that mean for employers?

One thing that this resounding election victory for Labor signals is that we have certainty about what the future of federal government looks like for at least the next 2 terms.

The Liberal/National Coalition is in disarray and its agenda, attitude and culture have been emphatically rejected by the Australian people.

I believe that our democracy is healthier when we have a strong Liberal Party as a responsible and influential balance in Parliament. So this is a sad state of affairs and it does mean that it will be years before we can hope for that to happen with what they have left in the Parliament.

So what does that mean if you are an employer?

Accept reality

If you were banking on the cavalry arriving via the return of a coalition government, forget it – it ain’t happening and won’t be for the foreseeable future.

So, all of those changes that Labor has made to employment laws in the last 3 years and which have flown on to modern awards are here to stay.

The right to disconnect (which for most businesses isn’t really a problem if they understand properly how it works) is staying.

Wage theft as a criminal offence (which is only a problem for someone who knowingly and deliberately rips employees off) is staying.

Employee expectations about flexible and hybrid working are also here to stay judging by the public backlash against the Coalition’s rhetoric on getting people back to the office and their subsequent and embarrassing backflip on that policy.

The demographic has shifted – we now have more millennials and Gen Zs and younger than Baby Boomers in the workforce and they are demanding honesty and transparency and purpose. So it is time to rethink your value proposition as an employer if you are going to attract and retain the talent you need and have a productive and happy workforce.

What else is coming?

The Albanese Government has already done most of what it wants to do in relation to changes to employment laws.

It has already forecast two areas for change:

  • The prohibition on restraint clauses in employment contracts for people whose remuneration is less than the High Income Threshold; and
  • Legislating protections of penalty rates due to some employer associations making application to the FWC to vary awards via annualised wage arrangements that might provide relief from penalty rates

There are also further reviews going on in the Fair Work Commission relative to Gender Wage Equality and with respect to “work and care” and they could deliver more changes in the next year or two.

The other area that businesses of all sizes need to be paying attention to are the positive duties which have come into play federally in relation to the prevention of sexual harassment and gender-based behaviours and, by State or Territory, in relation to the elimination or control of psychosocial hazards

In Queensland, the positive duty to prevent sexual harassment etc has also been subject to State legislation with all businesses having to assess risk sand put in place control plans by 1 March 2025.

What employers need to do

We developed our HEART model to provide simple guidance on the steps that organisations now need to take to be able to demonstrate true compliance in the new positive duty regime. It provides a roadmap for transparency and engagement as well as for effective compliance.

HONESTY

Educate yourself about what psychosocial hazards and sexual and other forms of harassment and discrimination are. Then have a good hard and honest look at yourself, your policies and practices and your peoples’ behaviour.

ENGAGEMENT

Consult with your people, educate them and listen to what they have to say. Build a culture of collaboration and shared interest.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Develop and implement positive policies and practical procedures to drive positive changes in language and behaviours and hold everyone responsible for playing their part.

REVIEW

This isn’t a transaction – it is a continuing journey and you need to continue to monitor and measure progress in collaboration and partnership with your people.

TRUST

Exercise empathy and vulnerability in leadership. Encourage and recognise diversity and peoples’ contributions and perspectives. Build trust, ensuring psychological safety for all.

Conclusion

We think that the election outcome is a victory for Australin culture and it has no doubt been fuelled by rejection of what we are seeing happening overseas and especially in the USA. We don’t want to be like that.

It is also a great opportunity for all leaders in business to take stock of exactly how aligned their workplace behaviours are with the desired Australin cultures.

Rather than thinking of the positive duties that have been introduced as just more compliance burdens, look at them as opportunities to explore, reflect and improve workplaces to be the best that they can be…..where people want to work.

If you would like to explore ways to take positive action to deal with all of these challenges, check out our suite of PosWork services at poswork.com.au or call us on 0438 533 311.

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

0438 533 311

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH

Changes to entry level award classifications

Changes to entry level award classifications

Latest News & Events

Changes to entry level award classifications

money changing hands

The Fair Work Commission has undertaken a review of entry level classifications in 45 modern awards and that is resulting in some key changes.

What’s changing?

The Fair Work Commission has decided that, where entry level provisions in modern awards had pay rates below the level of the federal minimum wage, they can only apply for a limited period while a new employee with no industry skills and experience learns their new job. 

The length of the limited period varies between awards but is most commonly 3 months and none allow for more than 6 months. 

Awards which just have changes to introductory level rules

These awards have variations from 1 January 2025:

  • Airline Ground Staff Award
  • Amusement Award
  • Animal and Veterinary Services Award
  • Australian Government Award
  • Dry Cleaning and Laundry Award
  • Fitness Award
  • Food and Beverage Manufacturing Award
  • Funeral Award
  • Graphic Arts and Printing Award
  • Joinery Award
  • Live Performance Award
  • Manufacturing Award
  • Marine Tourism and Charter Vessels Award
  • Meat Award
  • Pest Control Award
  • Port Authorities Award
  • Textile, Clothing, Footwear and Associated Industries Award
  • Timber Award
  • Travelling Shows Award
  • Vehicle Award

Plus the changes in the Horticulture Award take effect from 1 April 2025

Awards which have changes to minimum rates and introductory level rules

These awards have variations from 1 January 2025:

  • Air Pilots Award
  •  Aquaculture Industry Award
  • Architects Award
  • Business Equipment Award
  • Cement, Lime and Quarrying Award
  • Children’s Services Award
  • Concrete Products Award
  • Cottin Ginning Award
  • Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award
  • Rail Industry Award
  • Seafood Processing Award
  • Sugar Industry Award
  • Wine Industry Award
  • Wool Storage, Sampling and Testing Award

Plus the changes in the Pastoral Award take effect from 1 April 2025.

Enterprise Agreements

If an organisation has an enterprise agreement in place, they still have to pay new employees at least the new introductory rates that apply under modern awards from 1 January 2025 or 1 April 2025 as applicable. 

How can we help?

If you need assistance with interpreting  awards and the effects of these changes in award provisions for your business, we can help.

Just give us on 0438 533 311 to arrange your free first consultation.

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

0438 533 311

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH

Offshore worker’s unfair dismissal claim allowed

Offshore worker’s unfair dismissal claim allowed

Latest News & Events

Offshore worker’s unfair dismissal claim allowed

example flexible working arrangement

Are you using offshore workers in the belief that they are not covered by Australia’s Fair Work system? Well, you might be right….but then again, you might not.

What has happened?

Deputy President Slevin at the Fair Work Commission has determined that an offshore worker in the Philippines deemed by her contract to be an independent contractor is actually an Australian National System Employee with access to our unfair dismissal jurisdiction.

The case of Ms Joanna Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd involves a worker engaged to do paralegal work for a Queensland law firm which terminated her contract due to alleged breach of contract which was disputed by the worker and resulted in her lodging an unfair dismissal claim.

That led to a jurisdictional hearing as the respondent alleged (among other things) that she wasn’t an employee and so couldn’t be dismissed.

Here is the decision.

Why did the FWC make that determination?

In his decision, the Deputy President goes into quite a bit of detail on the terms set out in the written contract between the parties as well as the duties and working arrangements for the applicant and relevant case law.

One problem for the respondent was that, in parts, the contract referred to the other party as an employee or had provisions which would typically be associated with an employment arrangement.

The Deputy President also made note that the worker was more likely to be an employee because she worked inside the respondent’s business rather than providing services to the business from outside it. That perspective might be a bit of a red flag for the validity of many nominal independent contracting arrangements, whether local or overseas.

Reference was also made to KPIs that were set for the worker and to potential award coverage under the Legal Services Award 2020 with commentary that what the worker was getting paid ($18 per hour) was significantly below the award rate for the classification of work that she was performing as he saw it. Another red flag perhaps given the current federal government’s legislative changes to protect “employee-like workers” and provide the Fair Work Commission with the power to deal with complaints of unfair contractual terms from independent contractors.

The Deputy President concluded: “For the foregoing reasons I find that the relationship was an employment relationship. Accordingly, the Respondent’s objection is dismissed.” I would note that the foregoing reasoning was a lot more extensive than what I have set out above but hopefully my summary gives you the gist of the factors in play. 

What does it mean?

One of the things that has been repeatedly emphasised in the extraordinary range and number of changes that we are experiencing in our workplace relations system is that the focus going forward will be on the true nature of the relationship rather than just what is written in a contract

Another is to provide some level of security and protection and complaints jurisdictions for what have been called “employee-like workers”, those who might not be classified as National System employees because they are nominally not employees.

While we might not have expected that this would extend to offshore workers, this decision brings a whole new rage of considerations to bear in entering into offshore engagement arrangements.

One thing that is very clear from this case is that the poor drafting of the contract between the parties was a significant factor in the Deputy President’s considerations – he literally pulled it to pieces.

So any business entering into independent contractor arrangements whether locally or overseas needs to get professionally drafted contracts that don’t leave any doubt as to the relationship between the parties.

Another issue to consider which has been on our mind. Is one of the potential outcomes of a complaint to the Fair Work Commission re unfair contract terms by an independent contractor, a determination that the worker is a National System employee rather than a contractor? We reckon that might be on the cards. What do you think?

If you need any assistance with this or any other employment or related matter, please contact us on 0438 533 311 or by emailing us at enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

0438 533 311

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH