Does your employee have the right to dictate their conditions ?
April 19, 2023
Author name
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.
Our June 2024 newsletter is now available. Have a read to find out what we have been up to in the first half of the year!
The International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) System has come to the attention of many Western Australian farmers recently, as the scheme has changed one of its policies regarding aerial spraying. What is the ISCC? The ISCC is one of the world’s largest voluntary sustainability certification schemes enabling participants to demonstrate they are producing materials in a sustainable way that meets or exceeds community expectations. In Australia it is widely used in the canola industry, enabling Australian canola growers to access the European biofuel market. CBH Marketing and Trading holds certification for the ISCC EU and ISCC PLUS programs, that cover canola, barley, oats, wheat and lupin, allowing WA growers to participate in both programs. Participating in the ISCC program can result in a premium on grain, however participants are subject to more stringent measures to satisfy sustainability accreditation requirements. Recent decision on aerial spraying ISCC Principle 2.6.2 prevents aerial spraying from taking place within 500 metres of a body of water. CBH has successfully lobbied for an exemption to this Principle, for farm dams and salt lakes of low ecological value. As part of its lobbying, CBH provided expert reports to the ISCC on the hydrology and ecology of WA farm systems. For farmers who are signed up to the ISCC program, this removes an obstacle during the season for weed management. The Principle does still require a 500 metre buffer for other bodies of water, including freshwater lakes, rivers, ponds or creeks. However, for those who farm yabbies and marron, this change may not be welcome. Marron and yabby farmers have noticed impacts on their populations where aerial spraying has taken place close to their properties, and aerial spraying can unintentionally damage natural vegetation, including young and old growth trees. For growers, it’s always prudent to follow best practice guidelines for aerial spraying to avoid spray drift – including monitoring weather conditions and the effect of water added to the chemical. For some farmers, this decision may prompt an examination of whether signing up to the ISCC program might be best for their business. In this circumstance, it is important to weigh up the potential benefits of the program compared to the sustainability accreditation requirements. For others, this decision is a timely reminder to stay up to date with best practice guidelines when it comes to spraying, particularly during the seeding season. For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au By Ciara Nalty (Solicitor) For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au 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.
How does the Annual Wage Review affect workers and small business owners? Each year, the Fair Work Commission reviews the National Minimum Wage and the minimum wages set out in awards. Cost of living and inflation are front of mind for both employers and employees, and this year’s Annual Wage Review is likely to see an increase in the minimum wage and award rates. The Annual Wage Review is conducted by an Expert Panel, which takes submissions from interested groups, including the Federal Government, unions, and business lobby groups. The Federal Government’s submission to the Wage Review this year called for an increase to the minimum wage, though not specifying an amount. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has advocated for an increase of 2 per cent, at most. The announcement will likely take place in early June and any increase to the national minimum wage will take effect in the first full pay period on or after 1 July 2024. Failure to pay employees at least the minimum rate that is set out in an applicable award can result in penalties, including requirements for back pay and fines. The Fair Work Ombudsman uses its enforcement powers to issue compliance notices to employers, and recovered $14.8 million in unpaid wages in 2022-23. Small and medium businesses are subject to the same scrutiny as large businesses. For business owners, this is a timely reminder to review employment agreements and payments to staff. You should be conscious of which awards cover your staff members, as award rates for each level increase commensurate with the national minimum wage increase. It is also important to be aware of employee entitlements and set-offs, to ensure you are paying employees what they’re entitled to and avoiding future claims. If you are not sure what award your employee is covered by, have a question about employment conditions or require any other assistance with employment and workplace matters contact Bailiwick Legal on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au . By Ciara Nalty (Solicitor) For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au 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.
