Unfair Dismissals and Penalties

The vast majority of applications for unfair dismissals are discontinued.

Generally, this means that employers and employees have reached agreement so that a formal decision or order of the Fair Work Commission is not required.

Where negotiation does not result in resolution, any order for reinstatement or the payment of compensation made by the Commission can have further consequences for an employer if it is not obeyed.

If you are an employer and ordered to pay $2,200 as compensation for a dismissal found to be unfair, you would be required to pay it even if you needed time to do so and even if you disagreed with the decision.

You would not put yourself in a position where the Fair Work Ombudsman successfully applied to the Federal Circuit Court for $47,000 worth of penalties because your failure to pay $2,200 was a breach of section 405 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

This has happened and is a cautionary reminder to employers.

 

 

 

Read More»

Annualised salary and award covered employees

An employer which offers employees contracts with annualised salaries to compensate for all entitlements to which they are entitled under an applicable award needs to beware.

The applicable award may provide that an employer must state in writing which provisions of the award will be satisfied by the payment of the annualised salary.

If the employment contract does not state what entitlements are covered, an employer may find itself facing a claim for overtime, allowances, penalty rates or annual leave loading.

Nevett Ford can assist in avoiding this problem by conducting “health checks” of employee contracts for award covered employees.  

Read More»

Dirty talk costs a career

 

A police officer who was dismissed for serious misconduct for breaches of the New South Wales Police Force Harassment, Discrimination and Bullying Policy and Guidelines has failed in his attempt to have his employment reinstated: Torres v Commissioner of Police.

Serious misconduct was constituted mostly by Mr Torres asking junior colleagues personal and intrusive questions about sexual activity.

Mr Torres had an impressive twenty six years of service including a commendation for bravery.

This, however, was not able to save him.

His explanations that there was a culture of dirty talk where he worked and what he admitted to saying was meant as a joke were not accepted.

Workplaces must be safe for employees. 

Discussions that are sexually explicit and seen as sexually harassing cannot be tolerated.

In this case the employer could point to policy guidelines that made clear the rules and expectations in the workplace.

In our experience many employers do not have appropriate written policies and procedures in place and don’t have proper training to ensure that any policies are implemented.

Employers must educate their employees about how to conduct themselves at work and have clear policies that state what is in and what is out for conversation and behaviour.

Nevett Ford Melbourne lawyers can provide timely and proactive advice to employers on appropriate discipline and dismissal of employees based on misconduct in the workplace.

 

Read More»

DOUBT ABOUT STATUS OF CASUAL EMPLOYMENT

A recent decision of the Federal Circuit Court has cast doubt on whether casual employment is in fact that: Skene v WorkPac Pty Ltd [2016] FCCA 3035.

Mr Skene was employed as a dump truck operator by WorkPac, a labour hire company, which supplies workers to mines. His contract of employment with WorkPac designated him as a casual employee and he was paid a fixed hourly rate.

During his employment with WorkPac he had two placements at mines in Queensland. The second mine operator removed him from the mine and he did no further work for WorkPac.

After his employment terminated Mr Skene issued proceedings against WorkPac seeking payment of accrued annual leave, other consequential entitlements and pecuniary penalties.

Judge Jarrett found that, according to his contract of employment with WorkPac, Mr Skene was a casual employee. This, however, did not mean that Mr Skene could not be entitled to annual leave and other entitlements. Although section 86 of the Fair Work Act states that provisions relating to annual leave apply other than to casual employees Mr Skene needed only to establish that his employment was something other than casual to receive entitlements associated with permanent employment.

Judge Jarrett identified six factors that weighed in favour of Mr Skene’s employment being other than casual:

1. It was regular and predictable under 7 days on and 7 days off rosters set 12 months in advance;
2. Apart from one short period arranged with the second mine owner, was continuous;
3. It was facilitated by travel and accommodation provided at no cost to him;
4. The FIFO arrangement was inconsistent with the notion that Mr Skene could elect the days on which he worked without making the necessary arrangements with the mine owner;
5. There was an expectation arising under the contract of employment between him and WorkPac that he would be available according to the roster provided to him until the assignment was complete; and
6. The hours of work were regular and certain as demonstrated by his pay slips.
   As against that Judge Jarrett found three factors that weighed in favour of Mr Skene being a casual employee:
7. He was paid by the hour and had to submit weekly time sheets;
8. His employment was terminable on one hour’s notice; and
9. WorkPac designated his employment as casual and Mr Skene was aware of and accepted that.
   Ultimately, Judge Jarrett found that the essence of casual employment, which is the absence of a firm advance commitment as to the duration of the employee’s employment or the days (or hours) the employee will work, was missing in the employment relationship between Mr Skene and WorkPac.
   As the employment was something other than casual, Mr Skene became entitled to annual leave, which is not a benefit of casual employment.
   Although the decision could be said to be limited to its particular circumstances, it might be seen as applying in circumstances where employer and employee believe that casual employment applies but in reality given the certainty of hours and absence of choice as to when an employee works, the employment relationship is in fact other than casual.

Read More»

Unfair Dismissal – Your worker has been with you for HOW long?

How long does an employee have to be employed before they’re eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim?  The short answer is “that depends on the size of your business.”  If you’re a small business, the employee will have 12 months before they can claim eligibility. If you employ more than twelve employees, they will only have six months. But how is that six months calculated?

 

In Emma Wells v ABC Blinds & Awnings [2016] FWC 8260 the worker was employed between 4 February 2016 and 4 August 2016. She was originally engaged as a casual employee for the first three months and was later offered a permanent position, which she retained for another three months.

 

It’s important to note that during her casual employment, the worker worked regularly on a roster based system and took two days of unpaid leave within this period. 

 

The worker was sacked shortly after arriving at work on 4 August 2016 – exactly six months after her first day of work with the Employer.

 

The Employer argued that 1) the Applicant’s service as casual employee should not be included when calculating continuous service and 2) if the casual employment were deemed to be included, her continuous service would not add up to six months as she had taken two days off during that time. 

 

The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant’s employment was regular and systematic and therefore it could be included as part of her continuous service.

 

However, in light of the unpaid leave taken during her casual employment, the Applicant was found not to have served the minimum employment period, meaning she was not a person protected from unfair dismissal and her application was dismissed.  

 

So what are the lessons here?

1. A worker’s casual employment may be classified as continuous service for the purposes of the unfair dismissal laws depending on the regularity of their work schedule and also their expectations of future employment.
2. Any unpaid leave taken during casual employment will not break an employee’s continuous service, but it will also not contribute their continuous service with an employer.
    

If this all sounds too confusing and overwhelming, never fear! Call one of the workplace relations lawyers at Nevett Ford on (03) 9614 7111 for advice and assistance on all of your employment law matters. 

 

Read More»

Doctors Boss fined over $50,000 for threatening worker

The fact that an employer is a small business, that is having fewer than 15 employees, does not stop significant penalties being imposed upon it for proven breaches of the Fair Work Act.

Whatever size its business, an employer, must comply with the law.

This much is plain from the decision in FWO v Windaroo Medical Surgery Pty Ltd & Others (No 2) [2016] FCCA 2505.

In this case the Federal Circuit Court awarded penalties totalling $51,480 against the employer and two managers, who had been involved in breaches of the Act.

The employer threatened an employee doctor not to complain to the Fair Work Ombudsman about non-payment of his salary.

The doctor resigned and left Australia but the Fair Work Ombudsman took action not only to recover amounts owing to the doctor but also to ensure that employers understand that breaches of the Act have consequences.

The decision is a clear signal that employers and their managers, whatever their size, can expect stiff treatment for infringing a workers rights.

There are strong protections in the Fair Work Act to ensure that workers are not subjected to adverse action.  Employers should make sure they get legal advice from a workplace relations specialist before acting hastily. Equally workers who believe they have been treated unfairly should act quickly to protect their rights. Generally all rights to take action under the Act for unfair or unlawful dismissal must be done within 21 days of being sacked.

Read More»

Employer’s liability for the criminal conduct of its employees

 

The High Court of Australia in a recent decision of Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37 looked at the vexed issue of vicarious liability for institutions arising out of sexual abuse.

The majority of the High Court found that a criminal offence such as sexual abuse by an employee does not prevent the possibility that the institution will be liable vicariously.

The High Court determined that the relevant test to be considered is whether in this case the role of the housemaster placed him in a position of power and intimacy with a boarder, that gave the housemaster the occasion for the wrongful acts, and that because the housemaster took advantage of his role as housemaster, the abuse could be regarded as having been committed in the course or scope of his employment.

 Because much of the evidence to determine the actual role of the housemaster as assigned by the school has been lost, the school could not have a fair trial on the issue of liability.

The school was also prejudiced because the claimant conveyed the impression that he was not bringing proceedings and subsequently changed his mind.

Furthermore the claimant had brought actions against the direct wrongdoer and had resolved such actions.

Accordingly, it is clear that cases involving sexual abuse and the liability of an institution for the acts of its employees will be determined upon a careful consideration of the precise role of the employee and whether or not such a role gives the occasion for the wrongful act.

An examination of the role will include looking at the authority, power, trust, control and the ability provided by the employer to achieve intimacy with a victim.

 

Read More»