Does your employee have the right to dictate their conditions ?

Kimberly Jones • Sep 27, 2019

A recent Fair Work Commission decision illustrates the importance of responding reasonably to the radically altered situation of an employee.

When a staff member is faced with drastic changes in their personal life, it’s important that as an employer you respond with kindness and empathy, but does your employee have the right to dictate their conditions ? In a recent case the Fair Work Commissioner found that the employer had made a clear attempt to negotiate with the employee and that when a suitable arrangement could not be found, the employer had not been unreasonable in its refusal to meet the employees requested hours and leave arrangements.

Phillips v Integrated Medical Solutions Group (IMS)https://bit.ly/2n1KBVh

Ms Phillips, a 24-year-old medical receptionist, alleged she had been unfairly dismissed when her employment ceased due to the inability of her employer to accommodate her request for a change in hours.

Phillips was a full-time employee when her mother became ill and then passed away, leaving Phillips as carer to her 11-year-old sister. Phillips began a period of unpaid leave and claimed that during a meeting with HR she was told that she would “always have a job to return to”, and upon her return to work, she could work from 10:00am-2pm, Monday-Friday, instead of her usual hours of 8-6pm. The head of HR disputed this ‘promise’ claiming she advised Phillips the request would be subject to the approval of the practice owner.

Three months after her mother’s death, Phillips advised the head of HR that she was prepared to return to work under the condition that her hours would be changed (as above), to allow her to drop off and collect her sister from school, and that she would need to take one week off work each school holidays to care for her sister, and three weeks off over summer – stating that she had suggested she could take these holidays as unpaid leave. Countering this, the head of HR told the Commission that Phillips had informed her she would require all of the school holidays off work, and had not offered to take this as unpaid leave. Ms Phillips was advised that the employer could not accommodate her requests but could offer her alternative reasonable hours from 8:30am to 2:30pm, Monday to Friday, and she would be required to apply for annual leave, as per policy, for the school holiday periods. Alternative, Phillips was offered “casual employment on the standard terms.” She was also informed that she could return to work in her usual, full-time role. Phillips still wasn’t happy with these options and kept claiming the verbal ‘promise’ made by the head of HR when her mother first became ill. The head of HR, who was sympathetic to Phillip’s situation, outlined that there clearly was a position for Phillips, in fact she’d been given three different options, they just couldn’t operate around Phillip’s proposed hours. If Phillips was unable to take on one of these options, the head of HR said IMS would assume that Phillips “did not intend to return to work”.

On 2 May, Phillips was given until May 8 to respond if she wished to return to work however the employee refused to compromise. The head of HR prepared a separation certificate at Phillips’ request, recording the reason for the separation as, “employee ceased work voluntarily” however Ms Phillips did not agree and argued that she had been dismissed at the employers initiative and not resigned.

The decision.
Commissioner Hunt noted the many emails sent by Phillips stipulated that she was available to work between 10:00am and 2:00pm only. Hunt found that the practice had, “repeatedly, reasonably and professionally corresponded” with Phillips about the reduced working hours it could accommodate, and, alternatively, “invited Ms Phillips to return as a casual employee.” As a result, the Commissioner found that there was no conduct on IMS’s part that amounted to a dismissal on IMS’s initiative. Phillips, it was found, “had a substantive job to return to and she chose not to accept the respondent’s reasonable and accommodating hours of work given her personal circumstances.”

Ultimately, Commissioner Hunt felt that the practice had not been unreasonable in its refusal to meet Phillips’ requested hours and leave arrangements, and had responded appropriately to Phillips’ requests.

Lessons for employers
Phillips’ case is illustrative of the importance of employers taking reasonable steps to try to accommodate an employee’s changed circumstances, but that they are allowed to factor in the business’s operational needs. Perhaps most importantly, this case demonstrates that the best approach is always to engage in frank and open dialogue with an affected employee, as well as:

• Offering alternative working arrangements that are reasonable for both parties.

• Affording the employee an opportunity to discuss suitable working arrangements.

• Advising the employee of decisions regarding their employment and affording them an opportunity to respond.

The case also emphasis once again the importance of keeping a record of all HR related conversations with staff members either by writing memo’s or in a confirmation email.
 

If you would like further information in relation to how the above matters may affect your business, please contact us on (08) 9321 5451 

The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
05 Mar, 2024
Find out what we have been up to and recent events in our March 2024 newsletter .
20 Feb, 2024
The Human Rights Commission may take action against employers who fail to actively eliminate sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation in the workplace, as part of a positive duty reform. While the reform itself was introduced under the Sex Discrimination Act in 2022, a change was put in place last December - and every employer, including those in the agricultural sector, is affected. This change has provided the commission with new powers to investigate and enforce compliance with positive duty and investigate organisations or businesses where it "reasonably suspects" non-compliance. What does this mean for shearing contractors, sheep producers and other primary producers? Speaking at the WA Shearing Industry Association (WASIA) general meeting last month, Bailiwick Legal solicitor Matilda Lloyd said the enforcement power involved inquiries and investigations similar to WorkSafe. She said a complaint did not have to be made for an inspector from the commission to visit and look over a workplace, and see if there is any kind of sexual harassment occurring. "The commission looks at policies and procedures, and essentially you need to be able to demonstrate that you're compliant with this positive duty. "When you think about it in the context of a shearing shed, it is the safety checklist you have in place for when people enter the shed. "Those are the things you need to consider with sexual harassment as well." Ms Lloyd said the commissioner never had the power to conduct an investigation before and, as such, practically how it was going to work was an unknown. "We don't know whether they're going to be coming out and doing regular inspections, what those inspections are going to look like in terms of time or how thorough they are going to be, " sh e said. "They need to be thought of the same way as a WorkSafe investigation, whereby it could happen at any point whether a complaint is made or not. "Investigators will expect employers to show that they are actively trying to eliminate this form of unlawful conduct." If an inquiry occurs, what will happen? If an employer wasn't taking the correct measures to stop sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation from occurring, they could be issued a compliance notice. Ms Lloyd said if the notice wasn't adhered to and an inspector returned, they could apply to the Federal Court to have that positive duty enforced. What is positive duty? Ms Lloyd said a positive duty was a legal obligation on an employer or person conducting a business or undertaking to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful behaviours in the context of work, workplaces and working relationships. In the case of shearing contractors, sheep producers and other primary producers, she said that obligation was on the employer and applied to all staff, workers, contractors, customers and people entering, for example, a shearing shed. She said the obligation was "very broad" and applied right across the board. "Enforcing positive duty is pretty straightforward in terms of the employer, but when we look at the other parties involved it is extensive, " Ms Lloyd said. "When we are talking about sexual harassment in the workplace we are talking in the shed and in a vehicle on the way to work or another shed. "It is also offsite, so if you are having work drinks at the quarters or wherever afterwards - that's also a workplace within the definitions of the act. "The obligation applies across the board in all of these circumstances. "And also applies to visitors, so if you have farmers and they bring their wives, it is anyone coming into that shed or environment." In the context of positive duty, what do contractors need to do? Firstly, employers need to understand what sexual harassment, sex-based harassment, discrimination and victimisation is. Ms Lloyd said employers were responsible for leading their team, so it was important to understand what the laws were and how they affected not only them, but their employees. "When we talk about sexual harassment we talk about unwelcome conduct that is of a sexual nature or requests for sexual favours, touching, requesting dates and so forth," she said. "Whereas sex-based harassment is harassment that is targeted at a particular sex. "This could be making sexist comments about a woman because she's a woman or making sexist comments about a man because he's a man. "Then victimisation is about targeting someone because they've made a complaint." Ms Lloyd said a conversation then needed to be had to educate employees, whether that be face-to-face, by Whatsapp or having it displayed in the shed. She said there were resources and guidelines available through the Human Rights Commission, which helped with this. "Have that conversation - as an employer understand what sexual harassment is but then talk to your employees and be serious about educating your employees, " Ms Lloyd said. "It is about actually having that conversation and then thinking about what material can be given to them. "The whole point is to make it easy, so people understand. "Then it goes into training and support - is there someone in your team people can talk to?" The seven standards The commission has released guidelines for complying with the positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The guidelines are centred around seven standards - leadership, culture, knowledge, risk management, support, reporting and response, and monitoring, evaluation and transparency. Examples of practical actions that organisations or businesses can take to meet each of the standards are set out in the guidelines. Ms Lloyd said, as each business is different, it depended on how big a team was, what was going to be practical and cost-effective in the workplace. She said the commission would look at the different standards if there was an investigation or inquiry. How often do employers need to talk to their team about this? Ms Lloyd said it should be looked at similarly to safety or work related issues, whether that be a toolbox or regular meeting once a week or every couple of days. She said if a contractor was starting a new job or visiting a place they hadn't been to before, it was about having that conversation upon arrival. "When everyone's preparing for their first break, sit down and have a chat about general safety as well, " Ms Lloyd said. "That's the first step, and then follow it up a month later when you start a new shed. "It is about consistently and actively taking measures to create a safe space. "It seems obvious that once you've gone through your checklist you then talk to the people coming into that environment, who are your workers, and alert them to what you have found. "Similarly, with positive duty, a checklist is proof that you are doing the right thing if you are audited." Does insurance cover sexual discrimination cases? Having insurance does not diminish positive duty, it just safeguards employers against potential damage and loss against their business if they are sued. Ms Lloyd said sexual discrimination cases, which travelled through the Federal Court, were not cheap and often have adverse outcomes from an award of damages perspective. "If we talk about Work Health and Safety, as you know, that is a serious issue you have to take onboard and consider, " she said, "And that's the way I think employers need to frame their conduct when talking about and implementing measures to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation." Is an employer covered if they have put everything in place, but those rules are still broken? Ms Lloyd said an employer would be protected if they have been able to eliminate as much as they can with the resources available to them. She said it was important to remember sexual harassment and discrimination is unlawful conduct. "In terms of positive duty, by taking all reasonable steps and measures given the resources available to you, you will be able to mount a solid defence against any claim. "If you've done your duty positively and it can be demonstrated that you've exercised your role in appropriate fashion, then that will be solid defence." For more information on the positive duty reform and seven standards, go to humanrights.gov.au
14 Dec, 2023
See what's been happening and current topics of interest in our December 2023 newsletter .
Share by: