No Comments

Warning! Casual Employee Entitled to Annual Leave

In a major decision, the Full Bench of the Federal Court has held that a worker expressly engaged as a casual was entitled to annual leave and other entitlements upon termination.

In our view, in doing so the Court has cast doubt on decades of accepted industrial practices and the decision threatens to undermine casual employment relationships around the country.

The Facts

In WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene:

  • the employee was employed by a labour-hire company in the mining industry as a dump-truck operator and the employment was governed by the WorkPac Pty Ltd Mining (Coal) Industry Workplace Agreement 2007 (Agreement)
  • although the letter of employment stated he was a casual, he was subject to a continuous 7 day ‘fly-in, fly-out’ pre-set roster arrangement, worked regular and systematic shifts, stayed in accommodation at/near the mine and was expected to attend each shift
  • an ‘all-in flat rate’ of pay was payable for each hour of work although WorkPac did not specify what entitlements this flat rate of pay purported to absorb
  • the annual leave provision in the Agreement stated it only applied to permanent employees
  • although no annual leave was taken during employment and the employee was not paid any annual leave or notice upon termination, a claim seeking payment of same was filed

The Issues

Whilst the Fair Work Act states paid annual leave applies to all national system employees “other than casual employees”, it does not define a “casual employee” thus the issues for the Court were: [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

New – Fixed Term Contracts Expose Employers to Unfair Dismissal

In a decision that upends a decade of legal precedent, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission has opened the door for employees engaged under fixed or specified-term contracts to bring unfair dismissal claims at the end of their contract term.

It has long been accepted that:

  • employers are free to structure their affairs, including the contracts they offer to employees, in the way that they think best suits their interests
  • this freedom has led to the proliferation of fixed-term or maximum-term contracts
  • where these types of employment agreements expire at the conclusion of their term, employees are not eligible to bring unfair dismissal claims because the expiry of the agreement does not result in a ‘termination of employment at the employer’s initiative’
  •  [...]  READ MORE →

    No Comments

    New – Variations to Casual/Part-Time Rules in Modern Awards

    The Fair Work Commission has varied a number of Modern Awards to include additional provisions and protections for casual and part-time employees.

    In summary of the Fair Work Commission’s decision:

  • the affected Awards include:
    • Fast Food Industry Award 2010
    • General Retail Industry Award 2010
    • Hair and Beauty Industry Award 2010
    • Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010
    • Restaurant Industry Award 2010
    • Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010
    •  [...]  READ MORE →

  • No Comments

    Employment Law – Bupa Criticised for Disciplinary Process

    Employment Law – Background 

    The Fair Work Commission has found that a vulnerable aged care worker was unfairly dismissed due to her employer, Bupa Aged Care, acted unconscionably. Bupa were criticized for their “unprofessional, discourteous and unfair” disciplinary process.

    Employment Law – Facts 

    In essence:

    • Shahin Tavassoli, a refugee from Iran with limited English skills, was employed by Bupa
    • On the weekend of 13-14 November 2016, a colleague secretly recorded her on his mobile singing “I can do anything better than you” following a heated exchange between a resident and a nurse and also allegedly laughing and joking at the death of two residents
    • A second video, recorded the following day, allegedly captured her sitting in the TV room ignoring resident’s buzzers
    • These videos were shown to David Brice, acting general manager of Bupa Mosman a Miriam Lyman, care manger
    • On 16 November, Tavassoli attended work training. However, at 2pm Brice escorted her from the premises, only telling her that there had been serious allegations made against her and he was waiting for more documentation in a few hours.
    • In the two hours Tavassoli allegedly sat outside the facility, she jumped to the conclusion that the allegation may involve beer that a resident offered her. Determined not be terminated for stealing, she asked a college for help drafting a resignation letter. Brice didn’t accept this resignation letter
    • In a meeting with Tavassoli at 4pm, Brice read letters from Bupa containing allegations of misconduct and informed Tavassoli was being suspended on pay for an investigation
    • She never received a copy of this correspondence or the video footage
    • Brice also informed that unless she altered the date of her resignation, she was required to partake in the investigation. She then scribbled out the initial 4 weeks’ notice and gave the resignation back
    • The next day, Brice sent her a letter accepting her resignation. However, the following day Tavassoli attended the facility to rescind her resignation which was refused

    Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

    Resignation or constructive dismissal?

    The Fair Work Commission:

    • found Ms Tavassoli was constructively dismissed, on the basis that Mr Brice should have taken additional steps to ensure she understood the investigation and the effect of her resignation
    • believed Ms Tavassoli should have been “provided with copies of the letters and sent home to discuss them with her family”
    • stated it was not “satisfactory to say Ms Tavassoli resigned at her own free will when Bupa knew of Ms Tavassoli’s poor language skills and her emotional state”
    • found that Mr Brice suggesting an amendment to the resignation letter suggests that the termination “becomes one at the invitation of the employer”
    • also believed that it was unconscionable for Mr Brice to escort Ms Tavassoli from the premises and advise her not to return for 2 hours, without providing a reason for such process.

    Was the dismissal unfair?

    The Fair Work Commission:

    • found Bupa did not have a valid reason for dismissal on the basis that she hadn’t been acting in a disrespectful manner when she sung, nor had she laughed at the deaths of residents. It was found that she had also been on a break during the footage and had not been required to attend to residents buzzers
    • were critical of Bupa’s disciplinary process, labelling them “unprofessional, discourteous and unfair” in finding that Ms Tavassoli was not given anything in writing, not shown the video footage and was not given a proper opportunity to respond.
    • held that the dismissal was unfair, harsh and unjust
    • ordered that Ms Tavassoli be reinstated and paid her base pay for November 2016 to July 2017

    The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink: [...]  READ MORE →

    No Comments

    Employment Law – Dismissal for Drug Test Refusal Invalid

    Employment Law – Background

    The Fair Work Commission has held that a company who dismissed an employee for refusing to provide a blood sample for a drug test had no valid reason to do so.

    Employment Law – Facts

    In essence:

    • Green was employed by Lincon Hire & Sales as a work platform operator
    • On 1 March 2017, Lincon received anonymous information that the employee and others were using drugs
    • Lincon’s drug and alcohol policy allows random drug testing, and asserts that refusal to partake will be considered a positive test, allowing for potential disciplinary action, including dismissal
    • On 6 March 2017 all employees underwent a drug test. Green provided a negative sample. However, Lincon received further anonymous messages claiming that Green and others had used substitute samples
    • On 7 March 2017, Green was informed he had to undergo a blood test because the previous tests had been “fudged”
    • Employees, including Green, felt that a blood test was an invasion of privacy and Green offered to do a urine test instead
    • Green failed to attend the blood test appointment organised by Lincon. A company representative informed Green that he would be dismissed if he failed to submit the test Green did not attend a second appointment
    • Lincon attempted to contact Green and the other employees, however one employee told them they were “sticking together” and would not have the blood test. Green was dismissed the same day

    Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

    The Fair Work Commission:

    • found that Lincon’s policy did not specify the type of testing used and had no provision about blood samples
    • found that Green was allowed to question the test method
    • looked at evidence which showed that the urine collection process for the first test was closely supervised, and the fact there was “no suggestion, the sample was beyond the applicable temperature range or creatinine level, which could suggest it was not genuine”
    • believed no satisfactory explanation was provided by Lincon as to why a blood test was required
    • established request made of Green to undertake a blood test was “not expressly permitted by the policy and was not a reasonable direction”
    • held that there was no valid reason for dismissal
    • awarded Green $8150 in compensation or the equivalent of 8 weeks’ pay including notice, plus a 20% reduction for Green’s misconduct in secretly recording phone conversations with management

    The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

    Shannon Green v Lincon Logistics Pty Ltd T/A Lincon Hire & Sales [2017] FWC 4916 (20 September 2017)

    Employment Law – Tips for Employers  [...]  READ MORE →

    No Comments

    Employment Law – Employee Compensated After Award Obligations Ignored

    Employment Law – Background

    The Fair Work Commission has compensated an employee who was unfairly dismissed because her employer failed to comply with their consultation obligations under the relevant award.

    Employment Law – Facts

    In essence:

    • Carer’s that Care (CTC) terminated Ms Morris’ employment because it could not afford to pay her full-time wage after losing a significant number of clients
    • Ms Morris argued that she hadn’t received any warnings but was only told that CTC was shutting down and staff would be made redundant
    • She also argued that she was not provided with the opportunity to respond, because the managing director refused to have any discussions with Morris
    • Morris lodged an application for unfair dismissal

    Employment Law – The Relevant Law

    • Section 389 of the Fair Work Act (‘The Act’) states that a genuine redundancy occurs when an employee’s position is no longer required and the employer has complied with any obligations under the modern award or enterprise agreement
    • The Fair Work Commission will then examine whether the dismissal was harsh, unreasonable or unjust under s387 of the Act

    Employment Law – Fair Work Commission decision

    The Fair Work Commission:

    • found that the employee’s dismissal was not a genuine redundancy because the consultation obligations under the Clerks-Private Sector Award were not satisfied
    • accepted that Ms Morris was dismissed because her role could no longer be performed due to operational changes
    • found that the company had failed to consult with Ms Morris as required under the award was significant. Additionally, the company only verbally notified Morris of the dismissal
    • consequently ruled that her dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
    • ordered compensation of $5482

    The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

    Morris v Community Caring P/L t/a Carers That Care (U2017/6386) [2017] FWC 4433

    Employment Law – Tips for Employers  [...]  READ MORE →

    No Comments

    Employment Law – No Compensation for Employee who fibbed on CV

    Employment Law – Background

    The Fair Work Commission has held that a company’s failure to provide notice to a finance manager rendered her termination unfair. However in an interesting turn of events, declined to award compensation because she “deliberately deceived” them of her qualifications.

    Employment Law – Facts

    In essence:

    • In her application for an accountancy role at Spectrum Community Focus Limited, the manager claimed that her qualifications included “ASA-CPA Australia” (an associate member, who had six years to complete training to become a full member of the professional body for accountants) and had an MBA
    • She later became the finance manager, reporting directly to the CEO and board of directors and responsible for preparing financial reports
    • In November in the lead up to her dismissal, she made several blunders including failing to file the company’s return to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) by the required time frame. She also made several mistakes with the 2015 reports, including not reporting an apparent $600,000 loss to the managing director
    • On November 30 the managing director detailed the allegations against the finance manager in a letter, including the claim that she reported a loss of $86,000 when the correct position was a $322,908 profit.
    • On December 14, the company met with the finance manager who blamed the managing director and others for the allegations in the November 30, letter
    • She was immediately dismissed for serious misconduct instituted by her late lodgement to the ACNC, her poor financial reporting and her attitude towards the allegations made against her

    Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

    The Fair Work Commission:

    • believed that the finance manager caused the company “serious damage” when she failed to file its ACNC return within the timeframe or provide acceptable financial reports for 2015
    • found that the manager’s dismissal was not unfair “except in one limited respect”, as the company failed to provide her notice of termination which set out the reasons for her dismissal
    • believed that her dismissal for serious misconduct would have been better characterised as ‘poor performance’, which normally justifies notice
    • declined to award compensation because she had “deliberately deceived” the company of her qualifications when she applied for the position. She admitted that she did not have a master’s degree and was not an associate member of the CPA Australia
    • Stated it “would be reasonable to infer that at least part of the [finance manager’s] poor performance was due to the fact she was ‘out of her depth’ in performing the finance manager’s role”

    The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

    Emma Valenzuela v Spectrum Community Focus Limited t/as Spectrum Community Focus [2017] FWC 5007 (4 October 2017) [...]  READ MORE →

    No Comments

    Fair Work Commission – Settlement Prevents Dismissal Claim

    The Fair Work Commission has thrown out an unfair dismissal application because the employee had previously agreed to a settlement with his employer.

    Facts

    In essence:

    • In November 2016, Mr Singh was dismissed from his team leader role at Sydney Trains after an investigation into two safety incidents in August 2015
    • Singh was dismissed for failure to follow safety policies, procedures and guidelines whilst working in a safety critical location, causing significant risk of harm to himself, his team and the public
    • He applied for unfair dismissal under s 394 of the Fair Work Act
    • On 13 February, Singh’s solicitor wrote to Sydney Trains solicitor proposing terms of settlement, including that Singh be re-employed in an administrative role
    • Sydney Trains replied adding various qualifications regarding medical assessments and the requirement that a deed of release be signed
    • The deed of release was given to Singh and he agreed to settle the application in principle based on the terms in the draft deed.
    • Minor alternations were made and the Fair Work Commission was notified that they could vacate the hearing dates
    • However, by March Singh’s solicitor had failed to act and there was confusion over whether a binding settlement was made

    The Arguments

    • Sydney Trains claimed that a binding settlement had been reached, so the unfair dismissal claim should be dismissed. The essential terms of settlement were agreed, regardless of the amendments and qualifications.
    • Singh claimed that there was no binding settlement because the qualifications made by Sydney Trains were a counter-offer replacing his original offer. He didn’t accept the counter-offer, so therefore there was no binding agreement.

    Fair Work Commission Decision

    The Fair Work Commission:

    • determined that Sydney Trains demonstrated the intention to be bound by the essential terms of the offer. Their rewritten offer was merely in a more detailed form, which had no difference in effect
    • decided this on the basis that “the parties would have hardly agreed to vacate the four days of hearing and the associated and not insubstantial costs involved, if there was not a plain and obvious intention that the matter had been settled in principle” and there was no communication by Singh’s solicitor that the offer was rejected
    • therefore held that the settlement was legally binding
    • determined that as the settlement was in effect, Singh’s unfair dismissal application had no reasonable chance of success and was dismissed under s587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act

    The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:
    Subeg Singh v Sydney Trains (U2016/12864)

    Tips for Employers

    Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

    • review this Fair Work Commission decision
    • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this Fair Work Commission decision
    • ensure compliance with all employment laws including Fair Work Commission decisions, Awards and enterprise agreements
    • raise any questions with an employment lawyer

    More Information

    Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

    No Comments

    Employment Law – Bullying Allegations Reasonable Management Action

    Employment Law – Background

    The Fair Work Commission has thrown out an anti-bullying claim brought by an aged care employee as her employer’s conduct was considered to be reasonable management action in response to her inappropriate conduct.

    Employment Law – Facts

    In essence:

    • the employee alleged she had been frequently bullied by her manager and supervisor since 2014
    • amongst various bullying allegations, she alleged that her manager screamed on many occasions, chased and ambushed her, spoken about her in highly derogatory terms and refused to grant leave when her daughter was having a medical procedure
    • the employee also claimed her supervisor also bullied through his handling of investigations and allegations made by and about her making her feel “scared”
    • both the supervisor and manager denied the allegations and claimed that the employee had frequently been aggressive to the manager including yelling personal insults and pointing her finger in the manager’s face, following her into her office and blocking the exit
    • the employee also challenged the procedural fairness of her employer’s quick decision in providing a “show cause” letter quickly after she had addressed issues raised in a counselling meeting
    • however, the employer argued that on each incident they had carried out reasonable management action by issuing formal warnings and counselling meetings before issuing the letter

    Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

    The Fair Work Commission:

    • dismissed the workers application
    • acknowledged that it “may have been preferable for the employer not to finalise its conclusions in its letter to [her] on 20 January before concluding its views concerning her grievances”
    • nevertheless, concluded that the on the evidence presented the conduct of both the manager and supervisor was “at all times reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner”
    • noted that the evidenced pointed to the employee’s own conduct being inappropriate on the occasions she alleged the bullying occurred

    The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

    Application by E.K [2017] FWC 3907 (21 August 2017)

    Employment Law – Tips for Employers [...]  READ MORE →

    No Comments

    Employment Law – Adverse Action against Train Driver

    Employment Law – Background

    The Federal Circuit Court has determined that Australian Western Railroad took adverse action against a train driver when they cancelled his supervisor training after he refused to work a shift as a result of carer’s responsibilities and fatigue.

    Employment Law – Facts

    In essence:

    • the driver refused to work a “put-back shift” when a 3pm train he was rostered to drive was delayed by more than 3 hours
    • the driver claimed that he would be unable to work his shift because he would be fatigued, which was the result of his carer’s responsibilities. He argued that his absence should be recorded as carers leave
    • he argued that he had been primary caregiver of his children since 2011 due to compilations in his wife’s pregnancy which left her unable to care for the children
    • the driver claimed that he would be incapable of resting and his children would need to be cared for and would be making noise preventing him from resting
    • Six days after he took carer’s leave, the company cancelled the driver’s operations supervisor training

    Employment Law Decision

    The Federal Circuit Court:

    • concluded that the company breached s340(1)(a)(i) and (i) prohibitions on taking adverse action because of the exercise of a workplace right under/for discriminatory reasons under s351(1) of the Fair Work Act by cancelling training
    • in addition, held that cancelling the training also constituted an alteration of the driver’s position to his prejudice under s342(1) item 1(c)
    • consequently, believed that the delivery manager’s decision to stop supervisor training and not to reinstate it “was informed by the view” that the driver had a “lack of commitment and poor attitude”, and it was this against the background of the driver exercising his workplace right to carer’s leave which formed the basis of the adverse action and discrimination.
    • held that the delivery manager was wrong in labeling the drivers claims he was exercising his workplace right to carer’s leave as disingenuous

    The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

    Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Australian Western Railroad Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 1954 (18 August 2017)

    Employment Law – Tips for Employers

    Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers: [...]  READ MORE →

    No Comments

    Fair Work Commission – Reconsideration of Fixed Term Contract Authority

    Fair Work Commission – Background and Facts

    The full bench of the Fair Work Commission has taken the rare and serious step of allowing for a reconsideration of a full bench authority on fixed-term contracts. The Fair Work Commission granted the Navitas English Pty Ltd employee leave to appeal a ruling on whether employees on fixed term or “outer-limited” contracts are dismissed when their terms expire.

    Fair Work Commission Decision:

    The Fair Work Commission:

    • concluded that it was in the public interest to grant the employee’s appeal and reconsider the well-established 2006 decision of Department of Justice v Lunn
    • suggested this was a matter of public interest because Lunn considers old unfair dismissal provisions under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), and thus the applicability of the reasoning in Lunn as it applies to the Fair Work Act has not been previously analysed by the Full Bench
    • stated that in their view “the first ground of appeal raises issues of importance and general application in relation to the question of the approach that should be adopted by the Commission in determining whether there has been a termination of employment at the initiative of the employer, particularly in relation to employees who have been employed on a series of fixed term or outer limit contract”

    The decision is available for you to read at the following hyperlink:

    Mr Saeid Khayam v Navitas English Pty Ltd T/A Navitas English [2017] FWCFB 4092 (16 August 2017) [...]  READ MORE →

    No Comments

    Dismissal for Leaving Accident Reasonable

    Employment Law – Background

    The Fair Work Commission has ruled that a mining worker who was involved in an accident and failed to follow his employer’s incident management procedures by reporting the accident immediately was not unfairly dismissed.

    Employment Law – Facts

    In essence:

    • Mr Edgar was employed by Swick Mining Services as an underground diamond driller.
    • In April 2017, the light vehicle he was driving underground at the mine site collided with a wall, causing major damage to the vehicle. However, he changed a damage vehicle’s tyre and drove it up to the surface before reporting the incident.
    • After investigation, he was dismissed for breaching Swick’s incident management procedure
    • In dismissing him, Swick took into account Edgar’s three prior warnings and the fact the client would not accept him back on site.
    • Edgar argued that whilst he had hadn’t followed procedure, employees had not been dismissed for other safety incidents. He also claimed that he was exhausted at the time of the accident, and his request for the night off prior to the accident was refused.
    • Edgar further argued that Swick’s prior warnings were designed to make him resign following his workplace compensation injury and that during a meeting discussing outcome of the investigation he he was given a pre-prepared letter of termination.

    Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

    The Fair Work Commission:

    • found that Mr Edgar’s breach of process was a valid reason for dismissal
    • noted Swick’s evidence that Edgar’s leave request was denied as he told his supervisor he was fit for work and that Mr Edgar’s statement on the day of the accident didn’t mention falling asleep or being tired
    • there was no evidence that the warnings were designed to make Edgar to resign
    • highlighted whilst the pre-prepared termination letter was a “reason for concern”, the outcome would have been unaffected
    • concluded that the termination was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable

    The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

    Nicholas Edgar v SMS Operations Pty Ltd T/A Swick Mining Services [2017] FWC 3826 [...]  READ MORE →