top of page

Search Results

128 items found for ""

  • High Court to Reconsider Definition of Work: Implications for Employers' Duty of Care

    The High Court is currently deliberating a case that could significantly redefine employers' duty of care in relation to the disciplining and dismissal of workers. This case arises from the appeal by a former consultant for Vision Australia, who is challenging a Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal judgment concerning his dismissal and subsequent psychiatric injury. Background of the Case The consultant, who worked in adaptive technology for Vision Australia, developed a major depressive disorder after his dismissal in 2015. His termination followed an incident with a hotel owner during a work trip. Initially, the Supreme Court found no breach of duty of care by Vision Australia but awarded $1.44 million in damages for lost earnings and pain and suffering due to the organisation's failure to adhere to its own disciplinary processes. Challenging Historical Precedents The legal team for the consultant, led by Perry Herzfeld SC, Eitan Makowski, and Stephen Puttick of Eleven Wentworth, is challenging the applicability of the 1909 House of Lords' Addis ruling. This ruling has historically prevented Australian courts from awarding damages for psychiatric injury resulting from wrongful dismissal. Vision Australia contends that overturning this precedent would disrupt contractual certainty and business operations. However, the consultant's lawyers argue that the Addis ruling should not preclude the recovery of damages for psychiatric injury caused by wrongful dismissal. They emphasise that the case is as much about contractual breach leading to psychiatric injury as it is about compensation for the manner of dismissal. Legal and Societal Implications The consultant's legal team asserts that the correct approach should be based on ordinary contractual principles, as seen in the High Court's 1993 decision in Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon. They argue that the law must evolve in line with changing societal expectations, a concept supported by cases such as Johnson v Unisys. The lawyers also rebut Vision Australia's claim that this appeal only concerns compensation for the manner of dismissal, stating that it also addresses the broader issue of recovering damages for psychiatric injury due to contractual breach. Modernising the Definition of Work A key point of contention is the definition of a 'system of work.' Vision Australia has argued for a narrow definition, limited to the performance of workplace tasks. In contrast, the consultant's legal team argues that this narrow approach is outdated and fails to reflect the realities of the modern workplace. They contend that employers' duty to provide a safe system of work should logically extend to disciplinary and termination processes. Limiting this duty is seen as arbitrary and incoherent, neglecting the comprehensive nature of workplace health and safety. Potential Outcomes and Impact If the High Court decides to overturn the Addis precedent, it could pave the way for employees to seek damages for psychiatric injuries resulting from wrongful dismissals. This would represent a significant shift in the legal landscape, aligning with modern expectations of workplace safety and mental health considerations. Employers may need to reconsider their contractual terms and disciplinary procedures to mitigate potential liabilities. While some argue this could introduce uncertainty, the consultant's legal team maintains that clear, express terms in contracts can address these concerns. Conclusion The High Court's decision in this case has the potential to reshape the understanding of employers' duty of care in Australia. By expanding the definition of a safe system of work to include disciplinary and termination processes, the court could enhance protections for workers' mental health, reflecting contemporary workplace standards. As this case progresses, it will be crucial for employers and employees alike to stay informed about the implications for employment contracts and workplace practices. Stay tuned to 1800ADVOCATES for further updates on this landmark case and its impact on employment law in Australia.

  • ACTU seeking reproductive health rights in Fair Work Act

    The ACTU is calling for flexible work arrangement requests to extend to reproductive health issues, ahead of consideration of the issue at next week's triennial Congress in Adelaide. In its submission this month to the Senate inquiry into issues related to menopause and perimenopause, the ACTU is seeking the extension of the s65 right to request flexible work to include workers who are experiencing reproductive "symptoms or concerns". It says a FSU survey identified the crucial role of workplace supports, with access to flexible work and WFH the most important (see Related Article). The ACTU also wants reproductive health designated as a protected attribute in anti-discrimination laws, including the anti-bias provisions in the Fair Work Act. It says many workers "are reluctant to speak about their experience experience of menstruation, menopause and perimenopause in the workplace". It says this is "due to stigma, embarrassment, the taboo nature of these issues, the lack of support, understanding and respect from employers, and fear of the consequences of doing so (for example being perceived negatively, having their abilities or commitment to work questioned, fear of encouraging further sexism or ageism in the workplace, or being otherwise discriminated against)". The ACTU says the survey results also highlighted the challenges workers face in accessing "reasonable adjustments" at work. Adding reproductive health as a "standalone protected attribute" would also help to achieve the "cultural shift" required to ensure workers get the support and workplace accommodations they require. The submission says that menopause and perimenopause "have historically been regarded as issues that solely affect women" but it "recognises and affirms that these physiological transitions are also experienced by gender diverse workers, including trans men, non-binary and intersex workers". The ACTU also recommends the development of a reproductive health regulation and code of practice under model WHS laws. The submission says "numerous" affiliates have pursued menstrual, menopause and reproductive leave or entitlement claims in bargaining. Leave entitlements have ranged from five to 12 days. The FSU has won 12 days paid menopause and menstrual leave in the agreement for the CBUS super fund and 12 days paid menopause leave in the Police Bank deal. The submission also notes that CPSU Victoria won five days of reproductive health leave in the Victorian Public Sector Agreement (see Related Article). The ACTU submission comes ahead of its triennial Congress, at which the Queensland Council of Unions is planning to bring on debate about reproductive health rights (see Related Article), in the wake of its "It's for Every Body" campaign. The QCU in its March submission to the inquiry called for a similar flexible work request provision to that sought by the ACTU, along with 10 days non-cumulative reproductive health leave in the NES and Queensland Employment Standards (it recently won a 10-day entitlement in the State public sector - see Related Article). ACTU submission to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into issues related to menopause and perimenopause, May 10, 2024

  • A Significant Win for Mining Giants in Union Legal Battle

    In a landmark decision, major mining companies embroiled in a multi-employer bargaining test case have successfully obtained access to a comprehensive summary of legal advice given to Professionals Australia. This development comes after the union inadvertently undermined its claim to privilege by broadly sharing a PowerPoint slide that included the legal advice. Background of the Case The dispute involves several black coal mining employers—Peabody Energy, Glencore, Whitehaven, Delta Coal, and Ulan Coal Mines Ltd—who are resisting a union bid for a single interest employer authorisation under s248 of the Fair Work Act. The employers sought access to unredacted communications to bolster their case against the union's application. The Decision Deputy Presidents Peter Hampton and Judith Wright, alongside Commissioner Alana Matheson, ruled that the union's extensive distribution of the PowerPoint slide effectively waived its privilege. The slide, developed by a senior legal officer within the Collieries Staff division of Professionals Australia, was intended to convey external legal advice to union members during a meeting. The bench highlighted that the union did not take significant steps to restrict access to the slide or to ensure recipients understood its privileged status. As a result, the slide was shared broadly among union members, thereby compromising its privileged nature. Limited Access to Other Documents While the mining companies gained access to the unredacted PowerPoint slide, their request for an unredacted email containing similar legal advice was denied. The email, sent by a union organiser to a single delegate for internal decision-making, was deemed not to play a meaningful role in informing the broader employee base. Implications for the Mining Industry This ruling is a significant victory for the mining companies, as it strengthens their position against the union’s push for a single interest employer authorisation. Peabody Energy had previously expressed serious concerns about the potential implications of such an application on the industry, fearing that it would force different mines operated by competitors into a single industrial agreement. Union's Stance The Collieries Staff and Officials Association, representing over 200 deputies, shift engineers, control room officers, and undermanagers, has emphasised the importance of its application in improving and standardising conditions across the mining sector. The union is advocating for several benefits, including the payout of personal leave upon termination and redundancy pay at three weeks per year, among others. Looking Ahead This case highlights the delicate balance between maintaining legal privilege and the need for transparency in union communications. The mining companies' victory underscores the importance of careful management of privileged information in legal disputes, particularly in the complex landscape of industrial relations. As the case progresses, it will be crucial to monitor how these developments impact the broader mining industry and the future of multi-employer bargaining legislation. This case, formally cited as Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Great Southern Energy Pty Ltd T/A Delta Coal, Whitehaven Coal Mining Ltd, Peabody Energy Australia Coal Pty Ltd, Ulan Coal Mines Ltd [2024] FWCFB 266 (28 May 2024), sets a significant precedent in the ongoing dialogue between unions and employers in Australia.

  • A Case of Grave Workplace Exploitation: Lessons from the Foot & Thai Massage Pty Ltd Ruling

    In a landmark ruling, Foot & Thai Massage Pty Ltd (FTM) and its director have been ordered to pay over $2 million in fines and compensation. This follows egregious breaches of the Fair Work Act, which included underpaying temporary visa workers, enforcing a "cashback" scheme, and making threats to kill workers' families if they reported the abuses. The Case Overview The ruling, handed down by Justice Anna Katzmann, highlighted severe violations of workplace laws. The 2021 judgment found that FTM had engaged in multiple breaches, including threatening to deport the massage therapists to the Philippines and have their families killed. These actions contravened protections under the Fair Work Act against adverse action and coercion, specifically sections 340, 351, and 343. Exploitation Rooted in Vulnerability The court accepted that FTM exploited the workers' race and national extraction, believing the Filipina therapists would endure substandard conditions due to their financial responsibilities back home. The company also failed to pay the minimum hourly rates, penalty, and overtime rates as required by the Health Award. Instead, it forced six workers to refund $800 per fortnight during tough business periods, labelling these unlawful deductions as "staff loans." FTM's practices spanned over three to four years, during which the therapists were collectively short-changed nearly $850,000. The company lured them to Australia under false promises of fair work conditions, only to breach these terms systematically. A Deliberate Deception Justice Katzmann noted that FTM's director admitted to deceiving the Department of Immigration, with no genuine intent to comply with the employment conditions for sponsoring workers on subclass 457 visas. The judge condemned the director's economic decision to ignore the Health Award's requirements, which significantly harmed the therapists. Significant Emotional and Financial Harm The therapists suffered profound emotional distress due to the constant fear of retribution if they spoke out. This distress was exacerbated by their dependence on their jobs for their families' financial support back in the Philippines. The court's ruling acknowledged this ongoing suffering and ordered FTM and its director to pay substantial compensation. The penalties included $1,166,000 plus interest to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) to compensate the workers, $778,100 in fines against FTM, and $150,140 against the director. A second supervisor involved in the breaches was fined $38,700. No Remorse, No Lessons Learned Justice Katzmann underscored the severity and intentional nature of FTM's conduct. Neither the director nor the supervisor showed any remorse or willingness to change, necessitating strong penalties for both general and specific deterrence. The ruling allows the FWO to remit penalties to the workers if the compensation is not paid. In a related matter, FTM was previously found to have unjustly dismissed a massage therapist and a handyman-cleaner, highlighting a pattern of wrongful termination within the company. These unjust terminations, including allegations such as burping on customers and selling allegedly stolen goods, illustrate the company's repeated misuse of its power over employees. FTM's actions constitute wrongful dismissals that violate fair work principles and undermine employees' rights. Conclusion This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of protecting vulnerable workers from exploitation and ensuring that employers are held accountable for their actions. The substantial penalties imposed on FTM and its director reflect the seriousness of their misconduct and the ongoing need for vigilance in upholding fair work practices. As employment and human rights advocates, it is our duty to support those who face such injustices and to push for stringent enforcement of workplace laws to prevent such abuses from recurring.

  • Court Ruling Leads to Potential Dismissal of Nursing Union President

    Margaret Gilbert, president of the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland (NPAQ), is facing the possibility of losing her position at a hospital following an unsuccessful appeal in the Queensland Industrial Court. The court determined that her unauthorised media statements were not protected under industrial activity provisions. Deputy President Catherine Hartigan's ruling clarified the distinctions between an industrial association and a trade union. The court concluded that the NPAQ did not meet the legal definitions of either entity, allowing Queensland Health to lawfully issue a "show cause" notice to Gilbert in response to her media comments. This ruling aligns with an earlier mid-2021 decision by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (IRC). Deputy President Hartigan pointed out that it would be unreasonable to allow an unregistered organisation like the NPAQ, which has a separate corporate and legal identity, to benefit from the protections intended for registered organisations under Queensland's Industrial Relations (IR) Act without bearing the associated responsibilities. The IR Act defines an industrial association as either an employee organisation or an association of employees. An employee organisation must be registered under the Act, which the NPAQ is not. Moreover, an "association of employees" refers to a collective of workers who join forces to protect and advance their workplace interests, explicitly excluding incorporated entities like the NPAQ. Deputy President Hartigan noted, "It is inconsistent to consider an incorporated organisation as an 'association of employees' within the meaning of the IR Act." She emphasised that registered organisations gain specific rights and responsibilities through their registration, a status the NPAQ does not hold. As a result, the NPAQ cannot be classified as an "association of employees," and Gilbert's activities do not qualify as protected industrial activity under section 290 of the IR Act. Additionally, the court addressed Gilbert's argument that the NPAQ should be considered a trade union and that she engaged in trade union activities. While not being a registered employee organisation does not automatically disqualify a group from being a trade union, the NPAQ's status as an incorporated association and its focus on professional representation, rather than workplace advocacy, were found to be inconsistent with trade union characteristics. Gilbert also contended that Queensland Health infringed upon her rights to freedom of expression and association. However, Deputy President Hartigan concluded that since the NPAQ is not a trade union and Gilbert did not engage in trade union activities, her specified human rights were not applicable in this case. With the appeal dismissed, Gilbert now faces potential dismissal from her hospital role. This case underscores the importance of understanding the legal distinctions and requirements for industrial associations and trade unions in the context of workplace rights and protections. The case attracted further attention when Deputy President Hartigan took over from Justice Peter Davis, who recused himself due to potential bias concerns related to a letter he sent to the Industrial Relations Minister about regulating unregistered unions. The outcome of Gilbert v Metro North Health and Hospital Service and Ors (No. 2) [2023] ICQ 020 highlights the intricacies of industrial relations law and the critical distinctions between registered and unregistered organisations in Australia.

  • The privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) is a significant event in the country's economic history

    The process took place in three stages, beginning in 1991 and concluding in 1996. To understand the historical background and the rationale behind the Australian Labor Party (ALP) government's decision to privatise the bank, it's essential to consider the broader economic context and the political landscape of the time. Historical Background - Establishment and Early Years The Commonwealth Bank was established in 1911 by the Australian government and began operations in 1912. It was initially conceived as a government-owned bank to serve the financial needs of Australians, offering services such as savings accounts, personal loans, and business banking. Over the decades, the CBA expanded its services and became a central pillar of Australia's banking sector. Economic Reforms of the 1980s and 1990s By the late 20th century, Australia, like many other countries, was experiencing significant economic and structural changes. The 1980s and early 1990s were marked by a wave of economic reforms aimed at deregulating and modernising the economy. These reforms included financial deregulation, trade liberalisation, and privatisation of state-owned enterprises. The Hawke and Keating governments, both from the ALP, played crucial roles in these reforms. Reasons for Privatisation The ALP government, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke and later by Prime Minister Paul Keating, decided to privatise the Commonwealth Bank for several reasons: 1. Economic Efficiency The ALP government believed that privatisation would lead to increased efficiency and competitiveness in the banking sector. The prevailing economic theory suggested that private ownership would impose market discipline, leading to better management and improved performance of the bank. 2. Fiscal Policy Privatisation provided a significant source of revenue for the government. The sale of the Commonwealth Bank was expected to reduce the budget deficit and help manage public debt. At the time, the government was looking for ways to strengthen its fiscal position without raising taxes or cutting essential services. 3. Financial Deregulation The financial sector in Australia had undergone considerable deregulation since the early 1980s. The government had already removed interest rate controls, allowed foreign banks to enter the market, and floated the Australian dollar. Privatising the Commonwealth Bank was seen as a natural extension of these deregulatory measures, aimed at fostering a more competitive and dynamic financial sector. 4. Political Ideology The decision also reflected a shift in the ALP's approach to economic policy. Under the leadership of Hawke and Keating, the ALP embraced a more market-oriented philosophy. This ideological shift supported the notion that private enterprise was better suited to run commercial operations than the government. The Privatisation Process - 1991 - Initial Public Offering (IPO) The first tranche of the Commonwealth Bank's privatisation occurred in 1991, with the government selling 30% of its shares through an initial public offering (IPO). This move was part of the broader strategy to test the waters and gauge public and market reaction. 1993 - Further Sale In 1993, the government sold an additional 19.5% of its shares. This second phase continued the gradual reduction of government ownership in the bank. 1996 - Final Sale The final stage of the privatisation process took place in 1996 under the newly elected Liberal-National Coalition government led by Prime Minister John Howard. The remaining government shares were sold, fully privatising the Commonwealth Bank. Impact and Legacy The privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank marked a significant shift in Australia's economic landscape. It had several notable impacts: - Increased Competition: The privatisation contributed to a more competitive banking sector, encouraging innovation and improved services for consumers. - Government Revenue: The sale provided substantial revenue, aiding in fiscal management and reducing public debt. - Market Confidence: The successful privatisation was seen as a vote of confidence in the Australian economy, attracting both domestic and international investment. Convulsion The privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank was a landmark decision driven by a combination of economic theory, fiscal necessity, and ideological shift within the ALP government. It reflected the broader trends of economic reform and deregulation that characterised Australia in the late 20th century. The legacy of this decision continues to influence the Australian financial sector and economic policy today.

  • Significant Mental Health Challenges Warrant Extension in Unfair Dismissal Case: Fair Work Commission Ruling

    The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has granted a 13-day extension to a worker experiencing "significant" mental health challenges, permitting her to file an unfair dismissal claim after the deadline. This decision underscores the recognition of severe mental health issues, beyond the "ordinary stress" associated with most dismissals, as a valid reason for delay. The worker, a junior salesforce administrator at Leap Software Developments Pty Ltd, was informed that her role was made redundant effective immediately on February 20. She lodged her unfair dismissal claim on March 25, 13 days past the 21-day filing deadline stipulated under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s. 394(2). In her defence, the administrator presented a report from a senior clinical psychologist detailing her struggles with adjustment disorder, depression, anxiety, trauma, and insomnia. The report highlighted how these issues compromised her resilience and affected her ability to manage day-to-day tasks, including filing the necessary documentation for her unfair dismissal application. Email evidence revealed that the administrator had informed Leap of her pregnancy on February 14. On February 19, a day before her dismissal, Leap had congratulated her and provided the parental leave policy and application form. She testified that her doctors considered her pregnancy high-risk, adding to her stress. Leap argued that the administrator's ability to attend medical and legal appointments and complete medical paperwork indicated she was capable of filing her dismissal claim on time. However, Commissioner Stephen Crawford rejected this argument. He acknowledged the significant mental health issues and high-risk pregnancy, recognising these factors as contributing to her delay. Commissioner Crawford found the administrator had a valid reason for the delay up to March 18, when she sought assistance from Allwell Legal principal Zherui Yang. Due to her mental health issues, she was unable to file the application without help. Yang explained that collecting supporting evidence for the application caused additional delay. Commissioner Crawford noted that the appropriate course of action, given the 21-day period had already lapsed, would have been to file the application urgently with the available information. While the further seven-day delay could be attributed to representative error, there was insufficient evidence to establish this definitively. Ultimately, Commissioner Crawford marginally found that the administrator's mental health issues and high-risk pregnancy constituted exceptional circumstances under s. 394(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He stated, "The medical evidence establishes that the issues were substantially more than the ordinary stress that will inevitably arise with most dismissals." Genuine Redundancy Questioned Commissioner Crawford also questioned Leap's claim that the dismissal was a genuine redundancy. He suggested the administrator had reasonable prospects of proving her dismissal did not meet the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s. 389 definition of genuine redundancy. He pointed out that Leap may have failed to consult with the administrator about the impending retrenchment as required under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s. 389(1)(b). While Leap claimed her role was not covered by a modern award, Commissioner Crawford expressed doubt, noting her role and $80,000 salary likely fell under a modern award. "It appears arguable that Leap did not comply with the consultation provisions in the relevant modern award," he said, citing a lack of submissions or evidence from the administrator's lawyers on this issue. The administrator testified that she was unaware of any restructuring process leading to redundancy at the time of her dismissal. The parental leave application form sent the day before her dismissal gave no indication of her employment's imminent end. Commissioner Crawford concluded, "Given the timeframes involved, there is significant doubt that redeployment was properly considered by Leap." He found that the administrator's significant mental health issues, the steps taken to dispute her dismissal, and the potential merit of her application collectively constituted exceptional circumstances. This ruling highlights the FWC's recognition of severe mental health challenges as a valid reason for delays in filing unfair dismissal claims, emphasising the importance of comprehensive mental health considerations in employment disputes. Case Citation Jaweeria Khan v Leap Software Developments Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1218 (9 May 2024) --- For more information on your rights and assistance with employment matters, visit [1800ADVOCATES]( or contact a [MYUNION]( representative.

  • Unpaid Superannuation Now Treated as Wage Theft: Greens Secure Major Amendments to Closing Loopholes Bill

    In a significant legislative victory, the Greens have successfully negotiated with the Albanese Government to include substantial amendments to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. This move marks a pivotal shift in addressing unpaid superannuation, equating it to wage theft, and aims to bolster job security for teachers while preventing employers from exploiting intractable bargaining declarations. Key Amendments Secured Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke introduced these pivotal amendments, which were reached in agreement with employer groups concerning casual work, gig economy workers, and service contractors. The amendments reflect the Greens' ongoing commitment to workers' rights and include the following critical changes: 1. Superannuation Theft as Wage Theft: The amendments place unpaid superannuation in the same legal category as wage theft. This categorisation will see the most serious cases of superannuation theft criminalised under the Closing Loopholes Bill. This is a landmark step in safeguarding workers' retirement funds and ensuring employers are held accountable for their financial obligations to their employees. 2. Job Security for Educators: The amendments ensure that teachers and lecturers cannot be classified as undertaking seasonal work. This closes a loophole that previously allowed employers to terminate their contracts at the end of a teaching term and rehire them in the new year. By securing this change, the Greens aim to provide greater stability and job security for educators. 3. Preventing Bargaining Exploitation: Another critical amendment addresses an "unintended loophole" in enterprise agreement negotiations. Employers will no longer be able to stonewall and delay negotiations to push them off to arbitration, where they might seek to roll back hard-won conditions. This change aims to level the playing field in enterprise bargaining, ensuring fairer outcomes for workers. The Greens' Advocacy Greens leader Adam Bandt emphasised that these changes are crucial in lifting wages and empowering workers in their fight for fair pay and conditions. "The Greens amendments help fix problems that have seen workers' superannuation stolen, left teachers unprotected from being pushed into casual work, and given big employers the upper hand in enterprise bargaining negotiations," Bandt stated. Senator Barbara Pocock echoed this sentiment, highlighting the substantial impact of these amendments on Australian workers. "Superannuation is not an 'optional extra' and the amendments would reduce super theft," she said. According to Pocock, the average worker is out of pocket by $1,700 annually due to unpaid superannuation, amounting to a staggering $3.4 billion each year. Pocock also noted the benefits these amendments bring to educators. "Many teachers in schools and universities are in precarious employment working on casual fixed-term contracts. The Government has agreed to our proposal to specifically exclude 'university semester and school term from the definition of a specified season'," she explained. This change will provide much-needed clarity and stability to up to 60,000 university workers and tens of thousands of school teachers. Continuing the Fight While these amendments mark a significant step forward, the Greens are not resting on their laurels. Senator Pocock is continuing to push for further concessions in the Upper House, including the right to disconnect from work. This initiative aims to address the growing concern over work-life balance and the impact of constant connectivity on workers' well-being. The Greens' commitment to advocating for workers' rights remains unwavering as they strive to secure a fairer and more just workplace environment for all Australians. Legislative References - Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023: The primary legislation under which these amendments have been made, addressing various aspects of workplace relations, including casual work and gig economy protections. Conclusion The successful negotiation of these amendments is a testament to the Greens' dedication to protecting Australian workers. By treating unpaid superannuation as wage theft, securing job stability for educators, and preventing exploitation in enterprise bargaining, the Greens have ensured significant legislative advancements that will benefit countless workers across the nation. As the fight for further concessions continues, the focus remains on creating a fairer, more equitable workplace for all.

  • Case Summary: Variation of Modern Awards for Aged Care and Nursing Sectors

    On 15 March 2024, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission, consisting of Justice Hatcher, Vice President Asbury, Deputy President O’Neill, Professor Baird, and Dr Risse, delivered a landmark decision regarding applications to vary three modern awards: the Aged Care Award 2010, the Nurses Award 2020, and the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS Award). This decision, known as the Stage 3 decision, addresses critical issues of work value and gender undervaluation in the aged care and nursing sectors. Key Issues and Decisions Gender Undervaluation: The decision acknowledged historical gender-based undervaluation of work in female-dominated industries, particularly in aged care and nursing. This recognition is pivotal in addressing wage disparities and ensuring fair compensation. Work Value Assessment: The Full Bench conducted a thorough assessment of the work value for direct care employees, including Personal Care Workers (PCWs), Home Care Workers (HCWs), Assistants in Nursing (AINs), and Registered Nurses (RNs). It was determined that the existing minimum wage rates did not adequately compensate these employees for the value of their work, justifying a significant wage increase. Interim Wage Increase: An interim wage increase of 15% for direct care employees was implemented, effective from 30 June 2023. This increase was deemed necessary to achieve the objectives of modern awards and minimum wages as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Further Wage Adjustments: The decision also involved evaluating whether further wage adjustments were warranted for both direct and indirect care employees. This comprehensive review aimed to ensure that all categories of workers within the aged care sector were fairly remunerated based on the true value of their work. Classification Structures: The decision addressed the need for revising classification structures within the awards to better reflect the diverse roles and responsibilities of aged care and nursing employees. This included considerations for creating new classification streams and aligning nursing classifications with relevant standards. Historical Context The decision placed significant emphasis on the historical context of gender assumptions in wage fixation from 1907 to 1967. It detailed how traditional gender roles and stereotypes influenced the setting of minimum wages, leading to systemic undervaluation of work performed predominantly by women. The Commission highlighted several key historical decisions, including the Harvester decision, the Fruit Pickers decision, and the Archer decision, which collectively shaped the gender-biased wage structures. Conclusion and Next Steps This Stage 3 decision marks a significant step towards rectifying gender-based wage disparities in the aged care and nursing sectors. The Full Bench's acknowledgment of historical undervaluation and the subsequent wage increases set a precedent for future considerations of gender equity in wage fixation. The decision underscores the importance of ongoing reviews and adjustments to ensure that modern awards accurately reflect the value of work performed by all employees, irrespective of gender. Implications for the Industry For industry stakeholders, this decision necessitates careful consideration of the new wage structures and classification adjustments. Employers in the aged care and nursing sectors must ensure compliance with the revised awards and support the transition to fairer wage practices. Additionally, this decision serves as a critical reminder of the ongoing need to address gender inequities in the workplace, fostering a more equitable and just employment environment for all. For further details, you can access the full decision [here]( This summary provides a concise overview of the significant elements of the Fair Work Commission's decision, focusing on gender equity and fair remuneration in the aged care and nursing sectors. It aims to inform and guide stakeholders in understanding the implications and necessary actions arising from this landmark ruling.

  • Workplace Standards Raised: FWC's Ruling on Unfair Dismissal Claim

    In a landmark decision, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has emphasised the need for higher standards of workplace behaviour, rejecting the unfair dismissal claim of a long-serving Alcoa employee accused of groping a female colleague. This ruling serves as a warning that workplaces must now meet significantly stricter standards to ensure a respectful and safe environment for all employees. The case involved an advanced mechanical tradesperson at Alcoa's Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in Western Australia. After almost 20 years of service, the tradesperson was summarily dismissed following an investigation into an allegation that he inappropriately touched a female colleague's buttocks as he passed her in an office. The female employee, who is de-identified in the FWC's decision, testified that the tradesperson, with his back turned to her, placed his hands behind him and touched her "in an intimate location in a central area 'underneath her buttocks' close to her anus." She reported feeling shocked and uncomfortable but did not wish to cause a scene, opting instead to stand in silence. Her partner, who also worked at Alcoa, noticed her distress upon entering the office soon after and confronted the tradesperson. The tradesperson claimed he only tapped the woman on the side of her upper bottom to ask her to move out of the way. Nonetheless, Alcoa escalated the matter, standing him down and conducting a thorough investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. Despite her initial reluctance to formally report the incident due to fear of backlash, the female employee cooperated with Alcoa's investigation and was compelled to provide evidence to the FWC. It was revealed that the tradesperson had been previously counselled in 2009 over allegations of inappropriate physical contact with other workers. Deputy President Melanie Binet, in her ruling, accepted the woman's evidence that the tradesperson "groped her" by "touching underneath between her buttocks." She noted that the contact's sexualised nature was consistent with the woman's reaction and the observations of multiple witnesses to her distress on the day of the incident and following days. Deputy President Binet criticised the tradesperson's legal representatives for attempting to blame the victim, arguing that her position in the office made accidental contact foreseeable. She dismissed this argument, clarifying that the office was not a narrow walkway and that the woman's location did not justify the tradesperson's actions. Deputy President Binet stated, "It cannot be said that by merely joining her male colleagues in a small office she invited 'accidental' contact." She further noted that the tradesperson's own admission of placing his hands on the woman's lower torso and applying force to move her undermined any claims of accidental contact. The deputy president found that the tradesperson's actions, whether intended to be sexual or not, were of a sexual nature and breached Alcoa's code and policies governing workplace behaviour. This decision underscores that Australian workplaces are now expected to maintain far higher standards of conduct. Deputy President Binet highlighted that modern societal expectations, as reflected in company policies, demand greater respect and consent in physical interactions. This heightened scrutiny is particularly significant in industries such as mining, where there has been increased focus on addressing the prevalence of sexual harassment. The ruling aligns with recent amendments to the Fair Work Act, which explicitly recognise sexual harassment as a valid reason for dismissal. This legislative change reflects a broader societal commitment to eradicating sexual harassment from the workplace, equating it with other forms of serious misconduct such as violence and theft. The dismissal of the tradesperson's unfair dismissal claim in John Tamaliunas v Alcoa of Australia Limited [2024] FWC 779 (2 April 2024) serves as a critical reminder that Australian workplaces are under greater scrutiny to uphold high standards of behaviour. Employers and employees must work together to foster a respectful and safe working environment. This case demonstrates that organisations are expected to act decisively against misconduct, reinforcing the commitment to ensuring that all employees can work free from harassment and intimidation. By adhering to these heightened standards, the FWC ensures that workplaces reflect the evolving expectations of modern Australian society, promoting a culture of respect and safety for all. This blog post highlights the FWC's recent decision, which sets a precedent for workplace behaviour and reinforces the necessity for stringent adherence to respectful conduct. It serves as a crucial reminder for all organisations to maintain a zero-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment, ensuring a safe and respectful workplace for everyone.

  • FWC Reflects on the "Window of Currency" for Valid Dismissal Reasons

    In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) explored the concept of "current" valid reasons for dismissal. This case involved Vivesco Pty Ltd, which summarily dismissed a gardener nearly two months after he verbally abused a colleague. Despite identifying significant procedural deficiencies, the FWC supported the employer's decision to terminate the employee. Case Overview The gardener argued that his dismissal was unfair and claimed Vivesco was trying to force him to resign by assigning difficult tasks and substandard equipment. On the other hand, Vivesco cited numerous complaints from co-workers about the gardener's aggressive behaviour over six weeks, leading to his summary dismissal. The Key Incident The primary incident leading to the gardener's dismissal occurred in mid-December. The gardener accused a colleague of being a "liar" over a lawnmower dispute, followed by calling him a "fat exploiter of foreigners" and daring him to report to the managing director. This behaviour constituted a valid reason for dismissal due to its aggressive nature. Additionally, the gardener sent a "bizarre" message to a co-worker, claiming to be one of Australia's wealthiest men. The gardener explained this was meant to highlight the co-worker's 'imposter syndrome.' Another incident involved the gardener intimidating the same co-worker by calling him a narcissist while he was filling fuel cans. FWC's Analysis Deputy President Alan Colman determined the mid-December incident was serious misconduct and a valid reason for dismissal. However, Vivesco delayed the dismissal until after further complaints about the gardener's behaviour surfaced. The delay did not negate the validity of the original reason for dismissal. Deputy President Colman emphasised that section 387(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires the Commission to assess whether there was a valid reason for dismissal, independent of the employer's timing. This provision underscores the importance of maintaining a valid reason for dismissal, even with procedural deficiencies. Balancing Procedural Fairness and Misconduct Although significant procedural deficiencies were acknowledged, including not notifying the gardener of the dismissal reasons or giving him an opportunity to respond, Deputy President Colman concluded that the severity of the gardener's misconduct outweighed these issues. The case James Chol v Vivesco Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1220 (9 May 2024) highlights the FWC's stance on unfair dismissal claims, emphasising that valid reasons for dismissal remain critical, even in the face of procedural shortcomings. This decision serves as a reminder that both procedural fairness and substantive reasons are crucial in dismissal cases. Conclusion This ruling provides valuable insights for employers and employees regarding the balance between procedural fairness and substantive reasons for dismissal. The FWC's decision affirms that while procedural deficiencies are significant, they do not automatically render a dismissal unfair if there are valid reasons justifying the termination. For further details, refer to the case James Chol v Vivesco Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1220 (9 May 2024).

  • NTEU Leading the Way: Indigenous Employment Gains in Tertiary Education

    The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) has been instrumental in driving significant advancements in Indigenous employment within the tertiary education sector over the past two decades. A recent article in the Journal of Industrial Relations sheds light on the union's unique approach, highlighting its commitment to collective bargaining and the establishment of Indigenous-specific provisions in enterprise agreements. In 2000, Indigenous employment in higher education stood at a mere 0.68% of the workforce. However, through the NTEU's concerted efforts, this figure has more than doubled, reaching 1.34% by 2020. While this progress is commendable, it falls short of achieving population parity, which stands at 3.1%. Sharlene Leroy-Dyer, a prominent academic and chair of the NTEU National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Committee, underscores the importance of placing Indigenous workplace issues at the forefront of bargaining. Leroy-Dyer emphasizes the transformative power of collective bargaining in prioritizing labor market equality and fostering improved work environments for Indigenous peoples. However, historical marginalization has hindered the full realization of this potential. She notes that unions, including the NTEU, have often been complicit in the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from waged work—a legacy that must be acknowledged and addressed. Central to the NTEU's approach is its commitment to Indigenous-specific bargaining. Since the late 1990s, the union has consistently advocated for the inclusion of Indigenous employment targets and other provisions in enterprise agreements. This proactive stance has resulted in tangible benefits for Indigenous workers, including cultural leave, language allowances, and requirements for Indigenous representation in leadership positions. The NTEU's efforts have not been without challenges. Government policies, such as the Workplace Relations Act and the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements, have posed significant obstacles, limiting the union's ability to advocate effectively for Indigenous-friendly provisions. Despite these setbacks, the NTEU has persisted in its pursuit of equitable outcomes for Indigenous employees. One of the hallmarks of the NTEU's approach is its unique union structure, which elevates the voices of Indigenous members. Through designated ATSI positions at various levels of the union hierarchy, Indigenous members have the opportunity to shape policy and practices directly. This inclusive framework ensures that Indigenous perspectives are central to the union's decision-making processes. Looking ahead, the NTEU remains committed to advancing Indigenous employment within the tertiary education sector. With the majority of its agreements now containing Indigenous-specific provisions, the union is focused on addressing emerging challenges, such as cultural load—a concept that encompasses additional work performed by Indigenous staff related to their cultural identity. In conclusion, the NTEU's pioneering efforts in Indigenous employment demonstrate the transformative potential of collective action and targeted advocacy within the union movement. As we celebrate these achievements, it is imperative that we continue to uphold the principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion in our workplaces and beyond.

bottom of page