Resources: Blogs

As the weather heats up across Australia, employers may be thinking about the possible adverse effects of heat on employees. While the Fair Work Act 2009 does not specifically address the question of working in heat, some Modern Awards and Enterprise Agreements do.

Last year the Essendon Football Club was charged with breaches of the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 in relation to the Club’s controversial supplements program by WorkSafe Victoria.

On 8 October 2015 Justices Jessup, Bromberg and White of the Federal Court of Australia handed down separate judgments relating to the La Trobe University Enterprise Agreement. This decision may now see employers paying closer attention to what is contained within their policies and enterprise agreements.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia recently found a director and two managers of a company which operated a Victorian BP Service station personally liable for the underpayment of wages and breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009.

In July 2015 the Federal Circuit Court of Australia delivered its judgment in Huntly v State of NSW, Department of Police and Justice (Corrective Services NSW) [2015] FCCA 1827 (Huntly’s case). The Court found that Corrective Services NSW unlawfully discriminated against Huntly and failed to make reasonable adjustments after she was diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease.

It is often tempting for employers, particularly when under external pressure (for example, from customers, clients, sponsors etc) to overlook or shortcut the disciplinary process and to proceed directly to the termination of an employee’s employment. This failure to commence formal disciplinary procedures may expose employers to liability where the employee claims that he/she was denied procedural fairness.

You may have seen on the internet some daring employees who choose to provide their employer’s notice of their resignation by interpretative dance, song and even cake! Whilst there are many ways that an employee can notify their employer of notice – what happens in circumstances where an employee does not provide proper notice of their resignation?

Employers are often uncertain as to how to deal with the out of work hours conduct of employees.

While the Todd Carney saga demonstrates the immediacy of social media, the subsequent action of the Cronulla Sharks serves as a reminder to employers that procedural fairness is still required in the disciplinary and termination processes.

There is often confusion about what conduct constitutes ‘serious misconduct’ when engaging in disciplinary action or considering summary dismissal as the reason for termination of employment.

Both ‘workplace warriors’ and ‘sickie’ takers are bad for the modern workplace but there are ways that employers and employees can facilitate a change in attitude towards sick leave.

An increasing number of workplaces have introduced drug and alcohol policies which include random drug testing. These introductions are not always warmly welcomed.

Modern day employers are increasingly required to adapt to the sensitivities of their employees – particularly when needing to raise performance issues.

Since the introduction of the modern award system in 2010 many employers have found it difficult to understand the complex requirements. In fact, the Fair Work Ombudsman reported that for the 2013-2014 financial year it recovered more than $23 million for 15,483 workers.

There was much conversation last week regarding the certain sections of AFL crowds booing and jeering former Australian of the Year, Adam Goodes. As most people know Adam is a Sydney Swans AFL player, a proud indigenous man and a prominent advocate on behalf of the Australian indigenous community.

Employers are often faced with the challenging task of how to approach the situation where an employee falls foul of the law as a result of conduct in their personal life.

As our readers are aware, we have previously blogged about including psychological testing as part of a pre-employment medical. Building on that theme we now comment on a recent FWC decision involving an employer’s ability to have existing employees undergo a psychological medical examination.

In the recent case of Mr Christopher K v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 3967 the Fair Work Commission confirmed that there will be a valid reason for the termination of an employee’s employment where they are unable to perform the inherent requirements of their position.

Employers will make every effort to maintain confidentiality when it comes to employees who give evidence as part of an investigation. However, should a matter eventually end up before the Fair Work Commission (or similar tribunal) there is no guarantee that the confidentiality will be upheld.

In California, a Commissioner has said that an Uber driver who connects with his customers through the Uber app must be considered to be an employee. This means that Uber drivers are now eligible for reimbursements for expenses and for the minimum wage.

The widely reported decision of Commissioner Stanton in William F v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 2343 highlights the importance of witnesses participating in the FWC’s hearing processes.

The implementation and delivery of a work health and safety (WHS) induction program is an important part of the development of a positive workplace health and safety culture for an organisation.

Organisations have obligations to ensure the health and safety of their employees. One way for organisations to manage the risks is by making use of pre-employment medicals (PEMs).

The rate of men growing their beards is increasing all thanks to the current hipster trend. Beards may be non-controversial in some working environment and not permitted in others. When confronted with a growing trend towards facial hair, employers requiring a clean shaven look may be challenged as to the reasonableness (or otherwise) of their appearance requirements for employees.