Even a small mistake can have big consequences for employers

 

Coffey Projects (Australia) recently learned the hard way that there are serious consequences with providing employees incorrect information in relation to their workplace rights and entitlements.

 

Despite employing a Human Resources manager, Coffey Projects relied on outdated policies that did not reflect amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and provided an employee with incorrect information about his parental leave entitlements. 

 

The outdated policy incorrectly stated that parental leave was only available to “primary” caregivers. As he believed he was not entitled to parental leave, the employee took a combination of annual leave and unpaid leave in order to care for his newborn twins.

 

When he was due to return to work, he was only offered part-time hours and later made redundant. The employee successfully argued that had he been provided the correct advice, he would have applied for parental leave which guaranteed his right to return to work on a full-time basis. He then would have been entitled to be paid out his entitlements as if he were a full-time rather than a part-time employee. Coffey was order to pay the difference between these amounts being $109,000.

 

The outdated policy was in breach of the National Employment Standards and as a consequence, Coffey was ordered to pay their former employee almost $170,000 consisting of unpaid wages and redundancy pay which he would have received had he been granted parental leave. 

 

Although the Court found the employer did not act recklessly or knowingly, it was still penalised and ordered to pay an additional penalty of $8,800.

 

Read More»

The Standard Employment Contract: A Cautionary Tale

 

It really is a case of ‘buyer beware’ with many business owners downloading or buying standard employment contracts and templates online in an effort to save time and money.

 

Small businesses with limited human resources training are turning to Google and other search engines instead of an employment lawyer.

 

Unfortunately, these standard templates are often outdated and in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

 

Some documents offer less benefits than the employee is entitled to receive and do not provide an employer with adequate protection from breach of contract or unfair dismissal claims.

 

The implication for employers includes the risk of penalties of up to $50,000 by the Fair Work Commission for breaching the minimum National Employment Standards.

 

An employment contract should provide employees with the correct leave entitlements and include all important details such as location and hours of work as well as notice requirements in the event of termination.

 

A properly drafted contract will ensure both parties are fully aware of their rights and in relation to leave entitlements and their obligations at the end of the employment relationship. 

 

Do the right thing by your business and your employees and contact an employment lawyer to review your employment contracts and ensure your business is protected from penalties.

 

Read More»

Did you know that as an employer, you can be held responsible for your workers even when they are not working?

 

The Fair Work Commission recently heard a case in which three employees sought an order to stop bullying at their workplace. Their employer, DP World Maritime Limited, sought to strike out their application on the basis that the bullying behaviour took place when the employees were not ‘at work’.

Numerous employees had engaged in telephone calls and Facebook messages concerning their colleagues’ union memberships and made derogatory comments to and about them. These exchanges took place both during and outside of office hours in several locations both in and outside of the workplace.

 

The Commission had to consider the definition of the expression ‘while the worker is at work’ and what it encompassed. The Commission concluded that the concept of being ‘at work’ includes instances in which the employee is performing work and also when they are engaged in any other activity permitted by their employer, such as taking a meal break. The meaning is not confined to the workplace and includes any location or time of day when they are performing work. 

 

In this case, the Full Bench held that the behaviour took place while the employees were ‘at work’ leaving their employer at risk of liability for their actions.

 

If allegations of bullying have been made in your business, contact Nevett Ford Melbourne on (03) 9614 7111 and ask to speak to one of our workplace relations team about protecting yourself from legal action.

 

Read More»

When does a workplace entitlement becomes a contractual right?

 

An employer who failed to follow its own workplace policies has been successfully sued for breach of contract in the Full Court of the Federal Court.

 

The applicant in this case was a second officer on a supply ship and employed by the respondent, Farstadt Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd. 

 

Like most employers, the respondent had a Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Policy in place which set out the procedure for dealing with complaints. When the applicant made a complaint of sexual discrimination, these procedures were not followed.

 

The Court had to determine whether the workplace policy formed part of the applicant’s employment contract for the purposes of establishing whether there had been a breach of contract.

 

It was found that the policy did form part of the employment contract, binding the employer to its obligations to investigate complaints in accordance with its established procedures.

 

It was successfully argued that the employer failed to follow its own policies and in failing to comply with them, breached its own employment contract.

 

The employer was found to have breached the contract and ordered to pay the applicant’s costs.

 

While it is important to ensure your business has policies in place on issues such as bullying and harassment or drugs and alcohol, employers should ensure these policies do not form part of their employment contracts, lest they become a binding upon you.

 

To have your contracts reviewed, ensure their compliance with the legislation and minimise risk to you as an employer, contact Nevett Ford on (03) 9614 7111.

Read More»

Pitfalls of lack of process

Earlier this year, two cases heard in the Fair Work Commission demonstrated what can occur when proper process is not followed relating to termination of employment

 

In Lyberopoulos v Reidwell Investments BT Pty Ltd T/A Coco Cubano Blacktown [2015] FWC 4256, the employee was employed for less than seven months before she was summarily dismissed.  

 

The employer claimed she failed to comply with their procedures and did not follow directions. The parties contested the facts of the case and Senior Deputy President Drake had to determine whom to believe. She accepted the employee’s evidence over the employer’s because the employer did not seem to be a credible or reliable witness.

 

The Commission found that the employee was not appropriately warned that her actions may lead to the termination of her employment and the reasons for her dismissal were therefore harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

 

As the employee was unable to obtain alternative employment until 24 weeks and three days following the termination of her employment, Deputy Senior President Drake ordered that the employer pay compensation to the value of 24 weeks and three days’ worth of the employee’s salary, being $36,267.

 

In Balatti v Aussie Supplements Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 4674 the employee had been working as a sales manager for three years when he received a telephone call from his employer alleging he was being investigated for the sale of illegal drugs whilst at work. The employee was advised he would be dismissed from his employment and, several days later, received a letter confirming his immediate dismissal. The employer then failed to pay the employee’s accrued statutory entitlements upon termination, such as annual leave, and failed to participate in a conciliation conference and hearing before the Fair Work Commission. Commissioner Cambridge found the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable because the employer advised the employee of his termination by telephone and the letter of dismissal did not provide any reasons for the dismissal. As a consequence, the employer was ordered to pay $17,880.

 

Under section 117 of the Fair Work Act 2009 an employer is obliged to provide notice of termination in writing.  But as the decision in Clark v Framlingham Aboriginal Trust [2012] FWA 7103 shows, the failure to provide written notice does not make a termination ineffective if the employee has been notified (by whatever means) that his employment has been terminated.

 

Melita Demirova

Read More»