HR Law

Is your business: 1. Hosting a Christmas party; or 2. Shutting down over the Christmas/New Year period? HR Law's sister company HR Business Assist has recently posted a short video outlining some key obligations an employer should consider.

In the recent decision of Lauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme [2024] SAET 91 (18 October 2024), South Australia's Employment Tribunal found that a Council worker, who broke her arm and injured her knee after tripping over a pet fence in her home office, was eligible for worker’s compensation. The Council worker was approved to work from home while pet-sitting a colleague’s puppy. The Council worker erected a temporary fence to keep the puppy and her rabbit separated and inadvertently created a hazard. The worker then fell over the fence whilst walking to the kitchen to make herself a cup of coffee. The tribunal found that the physical hazard (the pet fence) was a "significant contributing cause" of the worker’s injuries. In addition, it was found that the worker’s employment was deemed a "significant contributing cause," given the worker’s autonomy in managing her work-from-home setup approved by her employer. This decision reinforces that an employer’s obligation around work health and safety extends to work performed outside of traditional office spaces, including an employee’s home. With work from home becoming a permanent fixture in many workplaces, employers should review their safety protocols for remote work to ensure they adequately ensure that each employee’s workspace is a safe work environment. To read the case, click on the link below. https://lnkd.in/gXMKCUhV

Do you subscribe to our monthly newsletter? This month, we discuss some recent court decisions, which present important lessons and best practices tips that employers can implement to navigate their legal responsibilities effectively. To read the Newsletter, click on the link below. https://lnkd.in/gs7hXFB8

Missed our Webinar: Navigating Enterprise Agreements: Genuine Agreement, Bargaining Implications and Legal Updates webinar? We have posted a copy on our website. Click on the link below. https://lnkd.in/gQPpZrJq

From today, 1 November 2024, same-job, same-pay order can take effect. “Same-job, same pay” laws are intended to ensure that labour hire employers who supply labour to a host employer pay their employees no less than the rate that the employees would be paid if they were directly employed by the host employer. Under section 306F(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), where a regulated labour hire arrangement order is in force, an employer must pay its regulated employees no less than the ‘protected rate of pay’ for the employee in connection with the work performed by the employee for the regulated host. To read the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations’ Media Release, click on the link below https://lnkd.in/gx8Ur2FA

A reminder that HR Law will be hosting a complementary webinar tomorrow, 30 October 2024 at 10.00am. To register, press on the link below.

Victoria Mitchell, Partner, recently met with the President of the Southern Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce, Zac Revere, at our new office in Coolangatta. HR Law has recently become a member of the Chamber, and it has been a great opportunity to connect with local businesses in the area. If you would like to book in a consultation at our Gold Coast office, contact Victoria Mitchell on [email protected]. 

In a landmark decision, the Federal Court has ruled that Qantas unlawfully dismissed 1,700 ground handling employees (“Employees”) in November 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. What happened? Qantas terminated 1,700 of its ground handling employees following the airline’s decision to outsource their roles to contractors. The Federal Court found that: - By terminating the Employees’ employment, Qantas had taken adverse action, as the decision was made to prevent Qantas employees who worked in its ground handling business from exercising their workplace rights to participate in a protected action ballot, organise and engage in protected industrial action and participate in enterprise bargaining, which was due to begin in 2021; - This action was in contravention of s 340(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FW Act”), which provides that a person must not take adverse action against another person to prevent the exercise of a workplace right by the other person; - The relevant “workplace right” was the ability for the employees to organise and engage in protected industrial action and participate in bargaining in 2021. In the three “test cases” to determine appropriate compensation as a result of Qantas’ contraventions of the FW Act, the Federal Court awarded compensation for non-economic loss for ranging amounts of $30,000.00, $40,000.00 and $100,00.00, as well as economic loss (limited to 12 months from the date each employee’s employment with Qantas was terminated). These test cases will provide a template to determine compensation for the group of dismissed Employees, as Qantas and the Transport Workers’ Union negotiate the final compensation amounts. Qantas and the Transport Workers Union will appear at an upcoming hearing to determine the final penalties. To read the decision, click on the link below https://lnkd.in/g3RSZnYP

In the recent case of Ramlan Abdul Samad v Phosphate Resources Ltd T/A Christmas Island Phosphates [2024] FWC 2868, the Fair Work Commission highlighted that simply informing employees about company policies in a “tick and flick” manner may not be enough to rely on them in a disciplinary process. In this case, Christmas Island Phosphates (CIP) dismissed a truck driver with 20 years of service for serious misconduct, citing bullying and breaches of CIP’s Code of Conduct and anti-discrimination policies. However, the Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal was harsh, noting: - The truck driver had limited awareness of the CIP policies cited in his termination letter; - A brief toolbox meeting where the Code of Conduct was discussed was not sufficient to be considered a ‘policy rollout’, especially considering potential language barriers; and - Proper training, explaining specifically why certain behaviours are unacceptable, might have prevented the misconduct. This case serves as a reminder to employers that it must ensure employees truly understand workplace policies, not just be aware of their existence. To read the case, click on the link below. https://lnkd.in/ex8P-wcA

In the recent case of Pilbrow v University of Melbourne [2024] FCA 1140, the Federal Court has emphasised the need for employers to clearly identify decision-makers when defending against adverse action claims. In this case, Melbourne University dismissed a lecturer in 2020 following a series of disciplinary and other actions, including placing her on a performance improvement plan, selecting her for redundancy, investigating her for serious misconduct and issuing a final written warning. The Lecturer argued that these actions constituted adverse action by the University, and therefore a breach of section 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). On appeal, Justice John Snaden noted that there was “insurmountable uncertainty” about who within the University was responsible for making the serious misconduct allegations. He highlighted that this ambiguity prevented the University from rebutting the presumption of adverse action, pursuant to section 361 of the FW Act, which requires a respondent to “establish that it did not do what it did for the reasons that are alleged”. Justice Snaden further explained that “in assessing the reasons that animated conduct amounting to adverse action, a court must interrogate not merely the state or states of mind of the person or people who engaged in that conduct; but also that of others whose contribution to it rose beyond a threshold level”. The failure to isolate a specific decision-maker meant that the University could not prove its defence. Justice Snaden has issued orders for a Directions Hearing to determine the future progress of the matter. To read the case, click on the link below. https://lnkd.in/gHUzevat