Resources: Blog

Using workplace laws to support HR’s position on staffing decisions

Blog
|

This is how we do it

HR professionals inhabit a unique environment with a unique set of challenges – they are expected to balance compliance, business interests and employee interests all at once. The most difficult position a HR professional can find themself in is being asked to carry out a business decision by a superior that conflicts with their obligations to ensure compliance with workplace laws, including the protections afforded to employees under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

HR professionals inhabit a unique environment with a unique set of challenges – they are expected to balance compliance, business interests and employee interests all at once. The most difficult position a HR professional can find themself in is being asked to carry out a business decision by a superior that conflicts with their obligations to ensure compliance with workplace laws, including the protections afforded to employees under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

Consider a situation where a HR manager is approached by the CEO and is told that the business needs to cut its labour costs and implement redundancies within three days.

Upon examining the section of the workforce that the CEO proposes reducing, the HR manager discovers that the employees are modern award covered and protected from unfair dismissal under the FW Act. Terminating their employment in such a hasty manner may expose the business to risks of unfair dismissal claims.

Rushed redundancies can lead to non-compliance with the consultation obligations under a modern award and a failure to secure the genuine redundancy exemption from the unfair dismissal jurisdiction.

The CEO’s directions were clear about what needed to happen – what should the HR manager do?

 

Make a financial case for compliance

The potential cost of non-compliance with consultation obligations can be significant and the process of dispute can distract a business from its true purpose.

The HR manager in the above scenario may consider using the likely financial costs of non-compliance as a reason to encourage the CEO to allow time to follow the requirements of the FW Act.

For example, successful unfair dismissal claims can result in an award of compensation (though reinstatement is the primary remedy) which can be up to 26 weeks of the employee’s wages or half of the amount of the high income threshold.

Additionally, contraventions of the FW Act, such failing to comply with the terms of a modern award, can attract penalties of up to $63,000 per offence for a corporation or $12,600 per offence for an individual “involved in” a contravention. In our example, both the HR manager and the CEO could be ‘involved in’ a contravention of the FW Act if they fail to comply with consultation obligations.

From a financial perspective, compliance with the provisions of a modern award and the FW Act is the best risk management strategy and could save a significant amount of time and money down the line.

 

The law as a compliance guide – securing the genuine redundancy exemption

It is well established that genuine redundancy consultation takes time – recently, a number of employers have come unstuck in cases before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) where their efforts at consultation have been labelled “hollow” or “unduly hasty and largely tokenistic.”

Where consultation is not carried out properly, it can render a redundancy not genuine and open the employer to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction. To contain this risk, employers should ensure that redundancies are genuine redundancies as defined in the exemption from unfair dismissal set out in the FW Act.

In our example, the HR manager could assist the CEO to understand what is required for a genuine redundancy by reference to the meaning of genuine redundancy contained in s 389 of the FW Act. The section sets out the three main criteria:

  • The employee’s job must not be required to be performed by anyone due to changes in the employer’s operational requirements;
  • The employer must comply with any consultation obligations contained in a modern award or enterprise agreement; and
  • The employer must redeploy employees where reasonable into positions within its enterprise or that of an associated entity.

This definition of genuine redundancy serves almost as a checklist for employers setting out what needs to be done to ensure a redundancy is a genuine one.

Ensuring that a redundancy is genuine secures the employer a valid jurisdictional objection to an unfair dismissal claim.

Presenting the law to the CEO as a compliance position will assist the HR manager to objectively make a case for approaching the redundancies in a different way.

Clearly, the FW Act has a lot to offer HR professionals when trying to communicate the realities of risk and compliance to business leaders. The FW Act can lend credence to a HR professional’s position for compliance where the implementation of a business decision may not actually serve the best interests of the business from a risk perspective.

 

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

Employer and director ordered to pay penalties for failure to comply with compliance notice

Compliance is a must

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.

Read more...

Employee dismissed for failing BAC tests

Cigarettes and cough lollies

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.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission rejects extension of time application after finding that the date of dismissal was made reasonably clear to the employee

Time's Up

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.

Read more...

Commission applies test confirmed by High Court in distinguishing between employee and contractor

Sham slam

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.

Read more...

Full Bench looks at meaning of dismissed for the purposes of the unfair dismissal jurisdiction

Down but not out

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.

Read more...

Employer fails to disprove adverse action claim

Step back

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).

Read more...

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.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.