Resources: Blogs

A recent decision of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission has highlighted one of the pertinent issues currently being faced by employers – that is, to what extent an employer is entitled to require or request an employee provide them with personal medical information.

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) prohibits employers from dismissing an employee from their employment because they have exercised a workplace right or because of a discriminatory reason, such as physical or mental disability.

The entitlement to redundancy pay under the National Employment Standards of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is one which is intended to minimise the adverse impact of a redundancy on affected employees, such as loss of job security and the potential difficulties associated with obtaining new employment in the open market.

An employee will have access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction if they have completed a minimum employment period of six months (or 12 months for small business employers). Generally, service as a casual employee will not count towards the period of service needed to satisfy the minimum employment period unless they were a regular casual, and they had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis.

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) contains provisions which make it possible for individuals to be found accessorily liable for their involvement in a contravention of a workplace law. In particular, section 550 of the FW Act provides that a person “involved in” a contravention will be taken to have contravened that provision themselves.

Division 4A of Part 2-2 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which came into operation on 27 March 2021, imposes an obligation on employers of casual employees to make offers of conversion to permanent employment in certain circumstances.

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), whether an employee’s dismissal was procedurally fair is a key factor in determining whether the dismissal was unfair. Procedural fairness requires an employee be given an opportunity to respond to or explain an allegation put to them by their employer. The employer must consider that response or explanation before deciding the disciplinary penalty – eg: a warning, or termination of employment.

Although circumstances may be unique to each case, generally, workplace policies will provide employers with grounds for termination when a significant breach has occurred.

In the post COVID-19 environment, one of the most common issues faced by employers is facilitating the return of employees to the office or normal workplace. In particular, many employers have been required to deal with increased reluctance by employees to return to the workplace following lengthy periods of working from home.

When setting a penalty for breaches of work health and safety obligations, the Courts will look at the need for specific deterrence against the offender and also the need for general deterrence for employers and the particular industry.

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) is able to determine certain underpayment disputes as “small claims proceedings”.

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), employers are prohibited from requesting or requiring full-time employees to work more than 38 hours per week, unless those additional hours are reasonable.

Medical examinations are often used by employers to assess the fitness and capacity of employees, particularly when the employee is returning to work after a non-work-related injury. Issues may arise when employees refuse to attend medical examinations.

It is not uncommon for employees to raise allegations against Employers in order to divert attention away from, or attempt to excuse their own misconduct.

There are often misconceptions about how many times an employee must be warned regarding their poor performance before they are able to be dismissed. Although there is no legislative requirement stipulating the number of warnings required, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides that an employee must be warned about their unsatisfactory performance before they are dismissed for that reason.

A recent decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has reaffirmed the standard of proof that is required to disprove allegations of unlawful adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The question of whether a demotion will constitute a dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was considered by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission NSW Trains v James [2022] FWCFB 55.

In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission has applied the test recently confirmed by the High Court of Australia in CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1 and ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2, in distinguishing between employees and contractors.

In a recent decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, an employer has been ordered to pay $150,000 in general damages to a former employee for failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent her from being sexually harassed in the workplace.

The stop-bullying provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provide a mechanism for the Fair Work Commission to impose orders upon employers (as well as individual employees) which are aimed at stopping bullying behaviour in the workplace.

Employees are often provided with benefits by their employer in addition to their normal salaries or wages. It is often when an unfair dismissal application is made that a dispute arises as to the value to be attributed to a benefit for the purposes of calculating whether an employee’s earnings are above the high-income threshold.

Workplace bullying occurs when a person (or a group of people) repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards another worker (or group of workers) and that behaviour creates a risk to the worker’s (or group of workers’) health and safety.

In our last Conversations, we discussed two recent decisions of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) which looked at an employee’s conduct outside of work and whether or not that conduct could be sufficiently connected to their employment so as to constitute a valid reason for dismissal.

While the internet has made the world seem smaller and more connected, the ability to have unlimited information at our fingertips carries a risk for employers that what is found on the internet will be used to unlawfully discriminate against people in their employment.

Today, HR administration systems make it easier than ever for employees to update their personal contact details. However, when there is formal communication to be sent to employees, employers should also ensure that they have the most up to date details for their employees to avoid any dispute about when information was sent or communicated.

The physical return-to-work happening at many workplaces will also see the return of work-related events in an effort to reacquaint employees after a string of lockdowns and stay at home orders.

Employees have a duty to ensure that their out of hours conduct (including social media posts) is not contrary to the obligations they owe to their employer. Further employees should also ensure that out of hours conduct is not in breach of workplace policies or damaging to the reputation of their employer.

When starting a new job, employees and HR are often inundated with administration and paperwork which must be prepared or completed. There are certain documents which must be provided to new employees and their importance should not be overlooked.

There is no doubt that the introduction of mandatory vaccination policies and the collection of information about a person’s vaccination status has raised debates and concerns surrounding personal choice and privacy.

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) imposes a strict 21-day time limit for employees to file unfair dismissal applications. The clock starts running from the date the dismissal takes effect.

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has highlighted the privacy considerations for employers when implementing vaccination policies in the workplace, particularly in this COVID-19 environment.

Two decisions of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) have reinforced that a failure to comply with public health orders or directions which mandate vaccinations will be a valid reason for dismissal.

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) regularly engages in enforcement action for contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). Such enforcement action includes issuing infringement and compliance notices, entering into enforceable undertakings or commencing litigation against companies and others involved in contraventions.

During the course of the employment relationship, employees will inevitably gain knowledge or be exposed to information about the employer’s business that is considered confidential to its operations and which the employer does not want to be put out into the public domain.

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.

The general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) are wide-ranging in the sense that they provide protections to, and prohibit adverse action by, persons and entities beyond an employee and an employer.

It is not uncommon for employers and employees to agree to flexible working hours, particularly in circumstances where the employee has family or other caring responsibilities. Such arrangements are best recorded in writing, setting out clear expectations of the employee.

Given the serious nature of matters such as dismissals, employers should, as far as reasonably practicable, communicate such matters in person to ensure that there is no confusion about when the employee was made aware of any issues with their employment.

Within the general protections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), there is a protection afforded to employees who are temporarily absent from work because of an illness or injury.

Communication between the employer and employees is essential for a good working relationship. Poor communication in the disciplinary process may lead to a deficiency in the process which renders the dismissal unfair.

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training.

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

In March 2021, the casual employment amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) introduced a new statutory definition of “casual employee” and an entitlement to casual conversion as one of the National Employment Standards (NES).

On 2 September 2021, the Federal Parliament passed the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 (the Bill).

For an employee to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, they must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. In some instances, a resignation can be a “dismissal”, when an employee is forced to resign due to the employer’s conduct. This is referred to as a “constructive dismissal”.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has a broad power under section 590 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) to “inform itself in relation to any manner before it in such manner as it considers appropriate”. Under this general power, the FWC may inform itself by requiring the production of documents or records to the FWC (such as all documents or records relating to a dismissal process).

Under the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee (such as dismissing them from employment) because they have a workplace right or because they have exercised or chosen not to exercise that right.

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) is required to consider a number of factors under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) when considering whether a dismissal was ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the Court) recently ruled on an application brought by an employee alleging that three respondents had engaged in breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), including sham contracting and dismissing the employee because she was pregnant.

The general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) provide protections against adverse action which is taken for a prohibited reason. Prohibited reasons for taking adverse action include situations where a person has a workplace right and exercises (or proposes to exercise) that right. Workplace rights include the right to utilise leave entitlements under the FW Act.

Generally, the way in which an employee conducts themselves out-of-hours does not fall within the realm of what the employer can supervise or control. However, there are times where an employee’s conduct after business hours and away from work can impact the employment relationship.

In a recent unfair dismissal decision, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has supported an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee for breaching its drug and alcohol policy despite the employer failing to strictly enforce the policy.

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) imposes a strict 21-day time limit for employees to file unfair dismissal applications in the Fair Work Commission. The statutory limit starts from the date the dismissal takes effect.

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the primary remedy is reinstatement. This means the employer is ordered to return the employee to their employment in the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.

In unfair dismissal matters, reinstatement is the primary remedy and the Fair Work Commission (FWC) may not make an order for compensation unless it is satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate.

Financial misconduct committed by an employee can fundamentally damage the trust and confidence in an employment relationship. Unfortunately, financial misconduct is a common issue for Australian businesses and if it is not dealt with promptly and effectively, there is an opportunity for further misadventure.

Social media and employee’s conduct online has without doubt added a layer to the employer and employee relationship. While employees may think that their online activities done outside of work hours may be private, their conduct online may become relevant to their employment, for example, where it may disparage their employer, other employees or clients.

The workplace culture of an organisation should reflect the values that the business upholds and expects of its employees. It is becoming increasingly challenging for employers and employees to understand where a line is drawn between a relaxed and open workplace culture and a workplace culture that tolerates inappropriate behaviour.

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) requires that employers comply with a number of procedural elements in a disciplinary process prior to making a decision about whether an employee’s conduct or behaviour warrants disciplinary action.

One of the most topical questions for employers during the COVID-19 pandemic has been whether they need to introduce policies that mandate vaccinations and, if so, what can be done to enforce them in the workplace.

It’s that time again – cold and flu season. In this blog, we explore some key issues around managing sick leave during this tricky time of the year and particularly in this current COVID-19 climate.

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have a positive obligation to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.

A dismissed employee can lodge an unfair dismissal claim alleging that their dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Employees will often claim that the dismissal was all three: harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

Discrimination in the workplace is unlawful under a number of Australian laws, including state and federal anti-discrimination legislation (such as the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth)) as well as the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, where it is found by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, the primary remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) is for the employee to be reinstated to the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.

During the course of their employment, employees may have access to confidential information which belongs to their employer. This information may be in the form of personal information provided by customers and is therefore sensitive in nature.

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have a range of positive duties and obligations to ensure the health and safety of workers under the model work health and safety laws in Australia.

Australia has long had in place state and federal anti-discrimination legislation which recognises sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination and makes sexual harassment in the workplace unlawful.

Employers often see the disciplinary process as an opportunity to raise every single indiscretion by an employee – even though the issues occurred in the past or are minor in nature when compared to other misconduct. However, this approach can weaken the employer’s position, rather than strengthen the decision to dismiss.

Work health and safety legislation in Australia places significant duties and obligations on persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) to ensure the health and safety of workers.

Employers have long known that they are obliged to try to find new employment opportunities for employees who are faced with the redundancy of their current role.

The Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) impose a number of obligations on employers with respect to the making and keeping of employee records and pay slips.

In order to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, an employee must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. One of the instances in which an employee may be “dismissed” from their employment is if they were forced to resign because of the employer’s conduct or course of conduct.

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.

A termination of employment letter serves a significant purpose in bringing the employment relationship to an end.

When it comes to engaging new employees or promoting existing employees, it is crucial that employers prepare and review contracts of employment to ensure that they accurately reflect the terms which will govern an employee’s employment.

Managing employee conduct and behaviour can be a challenge. The question of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in the workplace will depend on a variety of factors, including the industry in which the employees work, the overall culture of the workplace and community standards at any given time.

The COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic has significantly impacted the financial stability of many businesses. Employers have had to make difficult decisions and implement different measures to ensure the ongoing viability of their businesses. Some of these measures have included asking employees to agree to temporary reductions in their hours of work or to a reduction in their remuneration.

Enjoying the company of your colleagues is something most people hope to find in the workplace. It can make work much more enjoyable and lead to lasting friendships. However, fun in the workplace can cross a line when it takes the form of dangerous skylarking or roughhousing.

There is a common misconception that probationary periods allow an employer to dismiss an employee for any reason (or for no reason at all) prior to the confirmation of their employment. This is not necessarily the case and, in fact, there is no statutory basis that entitles an employer and an employee to a probationary period.

The Fair Work Commission’s recent decision in Hafsteins v Correct Installs Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 2729 has showcased a “patient” employer’s handling of an employee’s numerous workplace health and safety breaches.

Workplace fatalities are tragic and devastating events. In order to reflect the seriousness of these incidents, some jurisdictions across Australia have amended their work health and safety laws to establish the offence of industrial manslaughter, where the negligent conduct by a person conducting a business or undertaking or officers causes the death of a worker.

There is a common misconception that probationary periods allow an employer to dismiss an employee for any reason (or for no reason at all) prior to the confirmation of their employment. This is not necessarily the case and, in fact, there is no statutory basis that entitles an employer and an employee to a probationary period.

Out of hours conduct and its impact on the employment relationship is always a hotly debated topic – particularly between employers and their employees.

Many standard employment contracts contain a clause that addresses an employee’s obligations in relation to secondary employment and conflicts of interest. The obligation is generally that an employee will not act in a manner that conflicts with the interests of their employer or their duties as an employee. This contractual obligation is reflective of the common law duty that an employee must not engage in conduct that is incompatible with their duties to their employer

In April 2020, temporary amendments were introduced into the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to support the JobKeeper scheme. The provisions permit eligible employers to give certain directions to eligible employees in relation to reducing hours or days of work and/or temporarily changing their usual duties, location of work or days and times of work.

Across Australia, employers continue to face the difficult challenge of standing down employees in response to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is sometimes forgotten that sporting clubs and organisations are employers who are also subject to workplace laws and regulations in relation to their employees.

The Chief Operating Officer of Macarthur and South West United FC has launched legal proceedings against the Club, the Club Chair and another director alleging breaches of the general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

In deciding whether to take disciplinary action against an employee, it is important for employers to ensure that the employee is given a reasonable opportunity to provide a response or explanation before a final decision is made, particularly when it concerns matters that could result in summary dismissal.

In a significant recent decision, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission held that an UberEats delivery driver was not an employee, with the majority finding that the delivery driver was in fact an independent contractor.

The unfair dismissal provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provide a mechanism by which employees who have been unfairly dismissed can seek a remedy through the Fair Work Commission. However, not all employees will be protected from unfair dismissal and able to make a claim.

In R v Sapform Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 86, the NSW District Court (the Court) has criticised a formwork company for attempting to blame a worker who died after he was impaled by a metal bar when he fell from a height. The company was convicted and fined $450,000 for a Category 2 offence for the fatality.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has a vital role to play in the management of the current COVID-19 pandemic as it continues to impact employment relationships across the country.

The regulation of industrial action in Australia is complex. Whilst there is a need to acknowledge the rights of employees to engage in industrial action, the overall effect of industrial action on an employer’s business operations cannot be understated. Strikes or work stoppages and delays can have serious financial and reputational consequences for a business.