Restaurant owners happy to pay less on Sundays

For workers in the hospitality industry, rising early for a Sunday morning shift after Saturday night’s revelry is worth it - if only for Sunday penalty rates. 

This has been the case since 1 January 2010, when the relevant modern award, the Restaurant Industry Award introduced the penalty rate regime (see clause 34.1 ).

From 1 July 2014, however, Sunday penalty rates for many hospitality workers will reduce by 25%, following a Full Bench decision of the Fair Work Commission in Restaurant and Catering Association of Victoria - Re Restaurant Industry Award 2010 [2014] FWCFB handed down on 14 May 2014.

The decision will affect employees in the restaurant industry, which includes most hospitality workers, but not those in fast food outlets or restaurants in hotels or clubs.

The decision was a result of the modern award implementation process, which requires the Commission to review awards as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of their commencement, to check if it is achieving its objective of providing a “fair and relevant minimum safety net” of employment terms and conditions (section 134 of the Fair Work Act 2009). 

In deciding whether the award is “fair and relevant”, the Commission must consider numerous factors, including the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working on weekends.

The Applicants in the matter, the Restaurantand Catering Association of Victoria, Australian BusinessIndustrial and 16 private restaurant businesses, filed an application to the Commission seeking a number of changes to the award, including cdecreased weekend and public holiday penalty rates.

The application was first heard at the Commission by Deputy President Gooley, who after four days of evidence from employers, economic experts and academics, rejected (among other requests), the proposal to reduce Sunday penalty rates. 

Deputy President Gooley’s decision was based largely on there being “insufficient or no evidence that the proposed changes would improve productivity or encourage collective bargaining” [at 30].

The Applicants appealed Deputy President Gooley’s decision to the Full Bench, which on 14 May 2014, granted permission to appeal, finding that there was a sufficient public interest to be determined in the outcome. 

The Full Bench then quashed the Deputy President’s decision regarding Sunday penalty rates on the basis that the Deputy President had determined the matter “by reference to the test of whether there had been a significant change in circumstances since the making of the Restaurant Award and, as a result, did not consider the matter in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Transitional Act” [at 154].

Finding that 6 of the 9 elements of the Award’s objective were “detrimentally affected” by Sunday penalty rates, which were failing to achieve the “fair and relevant” objective of the award, the Full Bench then decreased Sunday penalty rates from 50% to 25% [at 303].

Unsurprisingly, United Voice, representing the industry’s employees, is upset, and considering an appeal, and Restaurant and Catering Australia is ecstatic, immediately issuing a press release praising the outcome of its “historic” fight.

The effect of the decision will be felt by the industry’s workers - a force already “low-paid compared to other industries”, with a “lower skills base” and made up primarily of students and women with children.

Emma Pollett-Sutton
Lawyer

Anyone seeking advice about workplace laws should contact Nevett Ford Melbourne Lawyers on 03 9614 7111.

Read More»

Fair Work Commission makes one order from 151 applications in first 3 months of anti-bullying jurisdiction

In March 2014 we wrote about the addition of an anti-bullying jurisdiction to the Fair Work Commission.   To recap, from 1 January 2014, ‘workers’ (a broad term which includes subcontractors and volunteers) can apply to the Commission for a stop bullying order.  Applications are dealt with by a Commissioner either by mediation, conference or hearing. 

The Commission reports on each of its jurisdictions on a quarterly basis.  On 23 April 2014, it published its first report on the anti-bullying jurisdiction, covering 1 January to 31 March 2014.

In the Commission’s first three months, it received 151 applications.  This is far below the 3,500 applications for the year predicted by the Commission’s General Manager, Bernadette O'Neill in June 2013.

Most applications were made against large employers with over 100 staff in the clerical, retail, banking and health services industries. 

Although the definition of bullying excludes reasonable management action, the vast majority of applications allege bullying by managers.

Interestingly, 20 applications alleged bullying by a group of workers.

All but eight of the 151 applications were withdrawn in the early case management or conciliation stages.

Of the eight applications that proceeded, six were rejected by the Commission for being frivolous, not having reasonable prospects of success, or because they were not made in accordance with the Act (in one example, the application form was not properly signed).

Of the remaining applications one led to the Commission’s first and only stop bullying order, made on 21 March 2014 by Senior Deputy President Drake in Applicant v Respondent [2014] PR548852.  

Details of the case are sparse - Senior Deputy President Drake’s order does not include any reasons, save that the orders were agreed by the parties during conference.  However, the order is quite specific in its wording.  The alleged perpetrator cannot have any contact with the applicant alone or comment about the applicant’s clothes or appearance.  Interestingly, the applicant was ordered not to attend work before 8.15 am.

As knowledge of the jurisdiction increases and more applications are filed, we will get a better idea of how the anti-bullying jurisdiction will work and whether bullied workers will resort to its remedies.  Given that managers are being accused of bullying most often, the main point for employers to take away from the Commission’s first three months is to ensure that managers are properly trained on all aspects of their role - starting with performance management and discipline. 

Emma Pollett-Sutton
Lawyer

Anyone seeking advice about workplace laws should contact Nevett Ford Melbourne Lawyers on 03 9614 7111.

Read More»