Resources: Blogs

Stand down and out


FWC dismisses challenge to stand down

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

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

Under s524 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), an employer is able to stand down an employee in circumstances where the employee cannot usefully be employed because of a stoppage of work for any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible.

In the recent decision of Marson v Coral Princess Cruises (N.Q.) Pty Ltd T/A Coral Expeditions [2020] FWC 2721, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was required to consider the stand down provisions of the FW Act when an employee claimed that he was unlawfully stood down.

The employee was a Marine Superintendent with a tourism-centric cruise line operator. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the employer was ordered, by the government, to suspend its operations. In compliance with that direction, the employer ceased trading entirely.

Prior to the cessation of trade, the employee’s duties included a range of administrative and support tasks. As a result of the shut down of operations, the employee’s duties were reduced. The employer determined that the remaining tasks of the employee’s role could be performed by employees who formed part of a “caretaker” group, and it made the decision to stand him down.

In the end, the employer stood down 107 employees, representing about 50% of its workforce, while other employees worked reduced hours and for reduced wages.

The employee refuted the employer’s decision to stand him down and claimed that the stand down was not lawful, in large part, because there was still useful work that he could perform. The employee lodged a dispute with the FWC.

In reaching a decision on the matter, the FWC provided some useful guidance on the stand down provisions in the FW Act.

The FWC said that there are three main criteria for assessing whether a stand down is consistent with the FW Act, in circumstances such as the present:

  1. The employee must have been stood down during a time when they cannot be usefully employed.
  2. There must be a stoppage of work for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible.
  3. The reason the employee cannot be usefully employed must be because of the stoppage of work.

In this case, FWC found that there had been a genuine stoppage of work within the meaning of the FW Act because the employer had entirely ceased trading. This fact was not diminished merely because some employees continued to work to maintain the employer’s business in “caretaker” mode. The fact remained that the employer had entirely halted its normal operations of conveying passengers on its cruise vessels. Further, that stoppage was the result of a government direction, and was therefore not within the control of the employer.

Importantly, the FWC drew a distinction between a stoppage of work due to a complete cessation of trade and a downturn in trade. The FWC said that a downturn in trade would not constitute a stoppage of work for the purposes of the stand down provisions of the FW Act as it would produce an unintended result whereby employees would be denied their employment entitlements each time an employer experienced changes in the market - this was not the intended purpose of the stand down provisions.

The FWC then considered whether the employee in this case could be usefully employed. The FWC said that an assessment of whether there was “useful employment” involved consideration of the factual matrix, including whether the employer had acted in good faith in determining that the employee could not be usefully employed. The FWC held that the economic pressure on an employer should be considered a relevant factor and perfection in decision making under such circumstances should not be expected.

The FWC found that the employer had carefully considered its situation before standing down employees and had done so in an effort to stay afloat through the COVID-19 pandemic. The employer had considered the tasks usually performed by the employee and had decided that those tasks were reduced as a result of the pandemic and any remaining tasks could be performed by other employees who were not stood down and who formed part of the caretaker team. The decision to stand down the employee and other employees was not taken lightly and was made in difficult financial circumstances.

The FWC was satisfied that the employer had appropriately determined that the employee could not be usefully employed either in his usual capacity or in a reduced capacity.

Finally, the FWC considered whether the stand down was because of the stoppage of work. The evidence of the employer was that the stoppage and resulting stand down were a direct result of government restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the FWC found that the required temporal and factual connection between the stoppage of work and the stand down were present.

The FWC decided that the stand down was lawful and dismissed the employee’s application.

What can your business learn from this decision?

Employers are not entitled to rely on the ordinary stand down provisions of the FW Act because they experience a downturn in trade – this will not satisfy the requirement that there was a stoppage of work for which the employer cannot reasonably held responsible. A complete cessation of trade or a total stoppage of the employer’s usual activities will satisfy the requirement that there has been a “stoppage of work” as required by the FW Act.

In a stand down situation, an employer is entitled to temporarily assign tasks to other employees where an employee’s duties do not exist at their usual capacity. Simply because some tasks of an employee’s role are still required does not mean that the employee can be usefully employed.

Finally, the stand down must be because of the stoppage of work – there must be a temporal and factual connection between the stoppage and the stand down.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

What does the end of COVID-19 isolation periods mean for workplaces?

Lonely no more

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, many Government issued public health orders mandated that persons who had contracted and / or were exposed to COVID-19 were to self-isolate for a period of time.


Requesting health information from employees

A force not to be reckoned with

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.


Expired COVID-19 schedules in modern awards removed

In April 2020, the Fair Work Commission introduced temporary measures in modern awards in response to the need to provide employers and employees flexibility in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.


Commission confirms inappropriate touching constituted sexual harassment warranting summary dismissal

‘Scuse you

Sexual harassment in the workplace has been the subject of significant reform over the past few years, with an even greater onus on employers now to take proactive measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of sexual harassment in connection with work.


Employers delay sinks bid for injunctive relief

Speak now

When seeking to enforce a restraint, it is important that employers seek to enforce the restraint in a timely manner to prevent future or an ongoing breach. Any delay will be considered by the courts when assessing whether it is reasonable to enforce the restraint.


Two-year post-employment restraint on hairdresser found to be unreasonable

Splitting hairs

When it comes to drafting post-employment restraints in employment contracts, it is important for employers to consider the purpose of the restraint and whether or not the restraint reasonably serves that purpose.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.