Call us on 1300 794 893

The Experts

Davidbates_150x143_normal
David Bates
+ About David Bates

David Bates is an Executive Counsel & Team Leader at Harmers Workplace Lawyers, where he works across all of the firm's practice areas. Prior to his appointment in August 2017, David was the Managing Director of a leading, online, subscription-based employment relations service where he provided a wide range of strategic, practical and plain-English advice to Australian business owners and operators.

David gained his BA (Government) from the University of Queensland in 1998 before going on to complete a Law degree, with Honours, in 2001. He began his career working for a large, blue-collar union before moving to Canada and then the United Kingdom, where he was employed by both the Commission for Racial Equality and its successor, the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission.

David routinely represents parties in Fair Work-related proceedings and is available to assist clients with all aspects of employment law-related compliance and best-practice. David is also an accomplished and highly sought-after public speaker who facilitates dynamic, informative and highly interactive workshops on all aspects of Australian employment law.

3 employment law tips for 2019

Thursday, December 13, 2018

One of the most important (and expensive, and risky!) assets in your business are your people, so here are some top tips to help make sure Australia’s employment laws don’t ruin your New Year!

1.     Check Modern Awards

Most employees are covered by one of the more than 120 Modern Awards which have been in operation since 1 January 2010. Knowing which Modern Awards apply to your employees – and complying with them in full and at all times – is not optional.  Remember, Modern Awards apply as a matter of law and not choice or preference. Take the time to revisit Modern Award coverage now, and you’ll be very glad you did later.

2.     Know What’s Changed

Australia’s Modern Awards were subjected to significant amendments through the course of 2018, and these changes flow through to all Award-covered employees as a matter of law. Some of the most significant changes that have been made include:

·       The introduction of unpaid domestic violence leave.

·       The right for casual employees to request conversion to permanent employment in certain circumstances; and

·       New rules requiring employers to fully-consider and respond to requests for flexible working.

Remember that your workplace policies and employment contracts can’t undercut these legal entitlements, so it’s important to know what’s changed and to make sure you’re compliant.

3.     Review Your Employment Contracts

Good employment contracts ensure everyone is on the same page and serve to protect your business’s interests. Double check your contracts now to ensure you’ve included clauses regarding the use of confidential information, minimum notice periods, and post-employment restraint clauses (where appropriate).

Remember that any changes to a contract will require the employee’s consent, so be sure to fully-discuss any proposed amendments with your employees before you ask them to sign them off!

Following just these three tips will help make 2019 a good year for you and your business.

| More

 

A good deed well done

Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Most employers who have ever found themselves on the receiving end of an employment-related legal claim will be familiar with Deeds of Settlement and Release. This is because the vast majority of legal claims are settled between the parties before they ever see the inside of a courtroom, and the settlement reached between the parties is recorded in a special type of document called a ‘Deed’.

In its simplest form, a Deed records in solemn form the fundamental aspects of the deal reached between the parties to settle the dispute before it is formally decided by an arbitrator, such as a Commissioner in the Fair Work Commission or a judge in the Federal Circuit Court.

A well-drafted and properly-executed Deed helps protect both the employee and the employer by:

·       summarising key aspects of the employee’s employment (such as their start and end date), and the circumstances relating to the dispute that prompted the original claim;

·       ensuring both parties understand their respective rights and obligations;

·       noting that neither party is making any admission of liability by signing the Deed;

·       prohibiting either party from disclosing the existence of the Deed except in specific, narrowly-defined circumstances;

·       ensuring the confidentiality of certain information is protected;

·       prohibiting either party from making any disparaging remarks about the other; and

·       preventing both parties from taking any further action against the other (except in relation to workers’ compensation).

Of course, Deeds are usually only accepted by an employee because the employer agrees to pay them a settlement sum. The details of this payment, such as when it will be processed and how it will be taxed, should also be clearly set out in the body of the Deed.

Unlike many other documents, Deeds may be executed as ‘counterparts’. This means both parties can sign separate copies of the Deed and it will still be enforceable (that is, the signatures of all parties don’t need to appear on the same page). However, the Deed should make it expressly clear whether execution via counterparts is acceptable.

Parties are legally-bound to comply with a Deed once it has been properly executed. If there is a breach, the other party will be free to approach the courts for relief.

Finally, it’s worth noting that an agreement reached ‘in-principle’ between the parties before a Deed is actually signed may also be enforceable even if a Deed is never subsequently signed. The courts have long held that a clear and unambiguous ‘meeting of the minds’ will amount to a legally-binding agreement even if the precise wording is still to be recorded in a Deed.

The moral of the story here is quite clear: always obtain expert advice!

| More

 

Jury duty: what employers need to know

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Under the Fair Work Act 2009, employees are legally-entitled to be absent from their workplace in order to perform jury duty. This entitlement forms one half of “Community Service Leave”, which is itself one of the 10 National Employment Standards (“NES”) which underpin the entire national workplace relations system.  For the record, the other half of Community Service Leave relates to emergency management activities.

Notification and Notice of Jury Service

An employee who needs to take time off work to perform jury duty must notify their employer of their likely absence and provide them with suitable evidence. In most cases, the employee will simply provide their employer with a copy of the letter they received from the relevant authority calling them up for jury duty.

An employee who attends jury duty should also obtain proof of their attendance from the court. This can then be given to their employer to confirm they did, in fact, attend the court as required.

Payment During Jury Duty

Under the NES, part-time and full-time employees are entitled to receive ‘make-up’ during at least the first 10 days of jury duty. ‘Make-up’ pay is the difference between the employee’s ‘base rate’ of pay and the amount they receive from the court for performing jury duty.

In most cases, the employee simply provides evidence of how much they received from the court (such as a receipt or payment summary), and the employer then pays them the difference between that amount and the employee’s base rate of pay for the period of time they were away from work.

While the NES only provides for make-up during the first 10 days of jury service, some state and territory laws require employers to continue paying make-up pay for as long as the jury duty continues. The Fair Work Act 2009 makes it clear that in those jurisdictions, employers must keep paying after the 10-day threshold has been reached.

Casuals don’t receive make-up pay for jury duty under the NES, however, they may have an entitlement to be paid under state or territory laws. It’s accordingly important to always check these carefully.

Avoiding Jury Duty

Jury duty is an important civic obligation, but the timing can be awful. I recently assisted a Managing Director who had been called-up for jury duty right in the middle of a major restructure!

The courts understand and accept that not everyone can perform jury duty when the request is made. However, every court deals with applications to be ‘excused’ differently, and it’s very important that the court’s rules are followed carefully and respectfully.

It’s also important never to assume that an application to be excused will be approved by the court. Always work on the basis that jury duty will be required, unless and until the court confirms otherwise.

| More

 

And the 120th Modern Award goes to…

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

There are a few things about Australia some Americans struggle to understand. Vegemite, for example. Or 5-day-long cricket matches. Or Modern Awards.

During my many years providing advice to foreign-born employers who’ve decided to open a business in Australia, few things cause as much amazement and bewilderment as Australia’s rather unique system of so-called ‘Modern Awards’.

I’ve written before about previous conversations I’ve had with friends and clients about these sometimes-lengthy documents, which impose minimum terms and conditions of employment for particular industries and occupations (think ‘Clerks-Private Sector Award’ and ‘General Retail Industry Award’, for example).

But last weekend I had the most entertaining conversation yet. The American was a friend of a friend who had moved here from California. He had a simple plan: open a café and serve great food, tasty coffee and quaffable wines in the evening.

It was all going so well, until he obtained advice about Australian employment laws generally, and Modern Awards in particular.

It turned out his business could have potentially been covered by either the Restaurant Industry Award or the Fast Food Industry Award. Apparently, a lot was made about whether he intended to serve food on paper plates (which can be taken away) or on porcelain (which require the customer to use his chairs and tables).

After eventually settling on the Restaurant Award (after a tortuous process of obtaining ‘non-binding’ advice), he discovered his employees would be entitled to different rates of pay at different times of the day and on different days of the week.

He was helpfully advised there was a downloadable ‘Pay Guide’ that could assist him. Unhelpfully, it’s 45 pages long, and he couldn’t make heads or tails of it.

Then he began reading the Award itself. After trying to understand all the various allowances, the rules about payment of wages, the entitlement to a job search benefit (paid by him) and the various forms of leave his employees were all entitled to take, he came to the long service leave clause.

“What’s that?” he innocently asked his advisor.

“Well, that’s the extended paid vacation you need to provide to your workers after a few years so that they can sail back to England and see their relatives” was the historically-accurate reply he received.

The American almost fell off his chair.

I told him I had good news and bad news. The good news was that if he’d tried to open his business here a decade ago, there would have been thousands of awards for him to wade through instead of today’s 120+.

The bad news was that many in this country still think Awards don’t go far enough, that they contain barely-acceptable minimums, and that the whole system needs to be rebuilt in favour of employees and at the expense of those who risk it all to employ them.

While I’m certainly not advocating an American-style free-for-all when it comes to workplace entitlements (in fact, far from it), I do sometimes wonder if we’ve forgotten just how fundamentally different our system is from those that operate in other equivalent economies.

If you need reminding, just have a drink with an American.

| More

 

The perils of dismissing employees

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Australia’s current unfair dismissal laws have now been in place since mid-2009, yet many employers remain unaware of what exactly an ‘unfair dismissal’ is and what they can do to minimise the risks of a claim being filed by a disgruntled ex-employee.

So, let’s take a closer look.

Under the Fair Work Act 2009, an ‘unfair dismissal’ is one which is ‘harsh’ or ‘unjust’ or ‘unreasonable’. While these terms are not defined in the Act, there are a range of questions the national workplace relations tribunal – the Fair Work Commission – must ask when deciding whether a dismissal was unfair. These questions include (but aren’t limited to):

·       was there a valid reason for the dismissal relating to the employee’s capacity or conduct?;

·       was the employee notified of that reason?; and

·       was the employee given an opportunity to respond?

Another important question the Fair Work Commission must consider is whether the employee was legally-protected from unfair dismissal when they were fired. This is because only employees who have completed the applicable ‘minimum employment period’ are eligible to pursue an unfair dismissal claim.

The minimum employment period is determined by the total number of employees employed by the business, and includes any workers in an ‘associated entity’. If the business has fewer than 15 employees, the applicable minimum employment period is 12 months. In all other businesses (i.e. those with 15 or more employees), the minimum employment period is 6 months.

Importantly, if the business qualifies as a ‘small business’, the employer is also entitled to rely on the ‘Small Business Fair Dismissal Code’ when letting an employee go. If the employer complies with the Code and an unfair dismissal claim is then made against the business, the Fair Work Commission will find the dismissal to be ‘fair’.

Lastly, it’s important to note that the Fair Work Commission will give considerable attention to the process that was followed by the employer leading up to the dismissal. For example, if an employee was dismissed for poor performance, the Fair Work Commission will generally expect the employee to have been given a prior final warning.

Similarly, if an employee is dismissed for misconduct, the Fair Work Commission will be keen to know if the employee was given an opportunity to ‘show cause’ why they shouldn’t be dismissed before a final decision to end their employment was made.

In summary:

·       Know which employees are protected from unfair dismissal;

·       Always follow a fair, thorough, and impartial dismissal process; and

If yours is a small business, always comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. Making sure you know where you stand before you dismiss an employee can save a lot of time and money down the track.

| More

 

Danger: you could be an accessory under the Fair Work Act

Thursday, November 08, 2018

Over the past fortnight, I’ve been fortunate to deliver presentations at a number of fantastic events around the country. Many of these conferences were attended by employers and their advisors, such as accountants, bookkeepers and HR professionals.

One topic that consistently came up was ‘accessorial liability’ under the Fair Work Act 2009. Alarmingly, not nearly enough is known about this extremely important topic.

Accessorial liability arises as a consequence of section 550 of the Fair Work Act, which is as follows:

Involvement in contravention treated in same way as actual contraventio

1. A person who is involved in a contravention of a civil remedy provision is taken to have contravened that provision.

2.  A person is involved in a contravention of a civil remedy provision if, and only if, the person:

(a)  has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the contravention; or

(b) has induced the contravention, whether by threats or promises or otherwise; or

(c) has been in any way, by act or omission, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in or party to the contravention; or

(d) has conspired with others to effect the contravention.

These provisions mean any person who is ‘involved’ in a contravention of the Fair Work Act (including breaches of Modern Awards and Enterprise Agreements) can be held liable for those breaches as an ‘accessory’.

For example, an accountant who provides payroll services for a business owner, who is underpaying their employees, can be found liable for those underpayments as an accessory.

This is just one of countless scenarios where accessorial liability could arise. Given the breadth of the provisions, virtually anyone (including an internal employee), who provides HR or payroll services or advice to an employer, can be held liability as an accessory, even if they indirectly omit to do something!

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) is increasingly relying on section 550 of the Fair Work Act when initiating prosecutions against employers. Both employers and their advisors need to know about this so that steps can be taken to minimise the risks.

Sadly, far too many people are only becoming aware of section 550 and its very serious consequences when it’s already far too late.

| More

 

The ACTU campaign wants to change the rules

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Over the past week, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has been encouraging workers to attend its ‘Change the Rules!’ rallies in Australia’s capital cities. According to the ACTU, the ‘Change the Rules!’ campaign is about giving “…all working people the basic rights they need to improve their living standards” (https://changetherules.org.au/learn-more).

The ‘rules’ the ACTU hopes to change are the workplace relations laws found in the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Act was introduced by the first Rudd Labor Government back in 2009, and was steered through the Parliament by the then Workplace Relations Minister, Julia Gillard.

So, just to be clear then, the ‘rules’ the ACTU now desperately wants to change are the ones they helped write and which were enacted by a strongly pro-union government. Hmmm.

Leaving aside the fact it’s fairly unusual for any organisation to champion the abolition of a system it helped create, I for one support changing at least some of the ‘rules’ enshrined in the Fair Work Act.

Take minimum rates of pay for example. Imagine for a moment you’ve decided to open a new shop selling cakes and coffee and have just hired your first employee (we’ll call him Ben). One of the first things you’ll obviously need to decide is how much you need to pay Ben. Well, let’s follow the ‘rules’ to find out…

First, we need to decide which of the 122 Modern Awards applies to Ben as a matter of law. Chances are we’ll be able to narrow this down fairly quickly to two Modern Awards: the Fast Food Industry Award and the Restaurant Industry Award.

It ‘feels’ like it should be the former, but the term ‘restaurant’ is defined very broadly in the latter. And your shop has tables and chairs and some people eat their cake and drink their coffee at the tables, and others ask for everything ‘to go’. Turns out you can’t decide which Award applies and you need expert help.

After eventually settling on an Award, you discover Ben is entitled to a different hourly wage depending on whether he is:

·       16, 17, 18, or 19 years of age;

·       permanent full-time or part-time or casual;

·       working within the Award’s ‘span of ordinary hours’;

·       working on a weekday, or a weekend, or a public holiday (or during ‘ordinary hours’ on a weekend;

·       working hours that qualify as ‘overtime’ under the Award (except on a weekend, when a different rate might apply);

·       working a ‘late night’ during the week (but not on a weekend);

·       working an ‘early morning’ but (not on a weekend);

·       assigned to Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, Level 5, or Level 6 of the Award

·       working a ‘split shift’;

·       entitled to a meal allowance that day;

·       required to wear ‘special clothing’;

·       entitled to have clothing washed; and

·       required to have any of his own equipment.

Unsurprisingly, you decide it’s all just too hard (you don’t have an accountant or payroll expert on the books after all) so you choose to pay Ben a fixed annual salary instead.

Unfortunately, in doing so, you fail to comply with the page-long set of ‘rules’, which must be followed when paying an annualised salary to this Award-covered employee. This ends up exposing you to penalties of just over $60,000 per breach. So, you fire Ben, face an unfair dismissal claim (which you end up settling by paying Ben ‘go-away’ money) and then close your shop.

Memo to the ACTU: yes, please change (some) of the rules!

| More

 

Tips & traps of Enterprise Agreements

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Here at Harmers, we routinely assist employers through the minefield that is Enterprise Agreement-making. What was once a relatively straight-forward exercise is today, unfortunately, comprised of a complex series of steps that must be carefully followed and documented.

While it simply isn’t possible to cover this topic in any depth here, there are a few tips and common traps we nonetheless thought we’d highlight, given just how many new Agreements are falling down at the last hurdle, due to procedural failings. 

Tip 1: Fill in the paperwork as you go

Once a new Agreement has been approved by employees in a ballot, it needs to be lodged with the Fair Work Commission for formal approval. Each Agreement needs to be accompanied by a Form F16 and a Form F17. The latter is a very detailed statutory declaration that can often take a long time to complete. We recommend you start completing this form at the beginning of the process, and then update it as you go. 

Trap 1: Don’t ignore the strict timeline requirements

Extremely strict time-related rules apply to Enterprise Agreement-making and if you break any of these rules, your Agreement will ultimately be rejected and you’ll be back at square one (it really is as bad as it sounds!). Here are just some of the timing rules that must be followed:

The Notice of Employee Representational Rights (“NERR”) must be issued to all employees who will be covered by the Agreement within 14 days of the ‘notification time’;

There must be a minimum of 21 days between the date the last NERR is issued and the date the employer requests employees approve a proposed Agreement; and

There must be 7 clear days before a ballot takes place, during which employees have access to the draft Agreement and any other relevant documentation (this is called the ‘Access Period’); and

New Agreements must be lodged with the Fair Work Commission for approval within 14 days of a successful ballot.

Tip 2: The Fair Work Commission has published an online date calculator

The Fair Work Commission has now published an online ‘date’ calculator that makes it much easier to comply with these complex rules. You’ll find the calculator here.

Trap 2: Don’t forget: All new Agreements must pass the BOOT

‘BOOT’ stands for ‘Better Off Overall Test’, and all new Agreements are assessed by the Fair Work Commission against the BOOT. The Fair Work Commission can generally only approve a new Agreement if it passes the BOOT. An Agreement will pass the BOOT if it can be shown each employee covered by the Agreement will be left better off overall under the terms of the Agreement, as compared to any otherwise applicable Modern Award.

Tip 3: Make sure you know which Modern Awards apply

If you don’t know which Modern Awards apply to the employees who will be covered by a proposed Agreement, you’ll have no way of knowing if it will pass the BOOT! Always get expert advice about Award coverage before you start the negotiation process.

| More

 

Two bites of the cherry

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

My recent post regarding adverse action claims generated quite a few questions from concerned employers. One question that came up time and time again was ‘so what exactly is the difference between unfair dismissal and adverse action?’ In fact, there are a number of very important differences, so I thought this deserved a blog post all of its own.

Nature of the claim

An unfair dismissal claim arises when an ex-employee alleges their dismissal was ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’ in the circumstances. This is quite different from an ‘adverse action’ claim, where (generally) a person alleges their employment was terminated because of a ‘workplace right’. For example, they might have complained to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) about their wage, only to then be fired when their employer finds out.

It’s important to note there are many different protected workplace rights and a person doesn’t necessarily need to be fired in order to bring an adverse action claim.

Who can bring a claim?

Only employees who have completed the applicable ‘minimum employment period’ are protected from unfair dismissal. The minimum employment period is determined by the number of employees working in the business. If it’s fewer than 15, the minimum employment period is 12 months. In all other businesses, it’s six months.

In contrast, adverse action claims can be filed by a person at any stage, even if they’ve never actually been an employee! For example, prospective employees (such as those who have only applied for a vacancy) are eligible to bring an adverse action against their prospective employer if they feel they were denied employment because of a workplace right.

Importantly, it’s not just employees who can bring an adverse action claim. These provisions of the Fair Work Act also extend to independent contractors, principals, industrial associations, and even employers (yes, in some circumstances, employers can bring adverse action claims against their employees!).

Who has the burden of proof?

If an employee claims they were unfairly dismissed, it’s up to them to prove this allegation. In sharp contrast, adverse action claims involve an unusual reversal of the ‘onus of proof’, meaning the employer is the one who needs to disprove the allegation. In practice, this can very tricky indeed.

What compensation/penalties are available?

If an employer is found to have unfairly dismissed an employee, the maximum compensation that can be awarded is capped at whichever is the lesser of either six months’ pay or half of the current High Income Threshold. 

In comparison, there is no maximum cap in adverse action claims, and employers can also face penalties if they’re found to have taken unlawful adverse action because these parts of the Fair Work Act are what are known as ‘civil remedy provisions’.

In summary, this all means adverse action claims can prove very expensive and extremely time-consuming.

| More

 

4 employment myth busters

Wednesday, October 03, 2018

This week our firm will be hosting another of our regular ‘employment law myth busting’ webinars. These webinars tend to be particularly popular because almost every employer has fallen for an ‘urban HR myth’ at some time or another.

Not sure if you’ve ever believed an HR fairytale? You’re certainly not alone! Here are just some of the myths we’ll be busting this week:

Myth 1: Small businesses are excluded from Unfair Dismissal laws

This myth was actually fact…a decade ago! However, since the commencement of the Fair Work Act, all the way back in mid-2009, employees in the national system have become protected from unfair dismissal as soon as they’ve completed the applicable ‘minimum employment period’. This period is 12 months where the business has fewer than 15 employees. It’s 6 months in all other businesses.

Myth 2: If I dismiss someone before they complete their probationary period, they can’t bring a claim against me.

While it’s true an employee who hasn’t completed the applicable minimum employment period isn’t protected from unfair dismissal (see Myth 1 above), any employee can accuse you of:

(a) discrimination

(b) taking adverse ‘action against’ them; or

(c) breaching their employment contract

at any time during their employment (including during their probationary period and, in the case of (a) and (b), even if you don’t employ them!

Myth 3: I can pay my employees whatever we agree as long as it’s above the National Minimum Wage.

The National Minimum Wage is designed as a ‘safety net’. It only applies to employees who are not covered by a Modern Award or an Enterprise Agreement. The simple fact is most employees in Australia are covered by either a Modern Award or an Enterprise Agreement and these contain minimum rates of pay (as well as a dizzying array of other terms and conditions of employment), which much be provided to the relevant employees.

Myth 4: I can cash out all my employee’s accrued annual leave if they request it.

While you might be doing your employee a favour, you certainly won’t be doing yourself (or your business) one, if you allow an employee to cash out all their accrued annual leave. Unless an employee’s employment has come to an end, strict rules must be followed whenever annual leave is cashed out, and a minimum balance must always be retained.

There are so many myths out there that it’s often hard to know where to start. We hope this brief look at just some of them has been helpful and got you thinking: what other HR myths have I believed!?

| More

 

MORE ARTICLES

Unfair dismissal: 7 things you need to know.

3 things you must know about adverse action claims

All I’m asking is for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Workplace relations back on the table

Mate or workmate? Boss or buddy?

Before you fire someone, read these tips!

Before you fire someone, read these tips!

The shocking surprises that confront new employers

Law change gives Australians five days off a year for domestic violence

The blurring line between work and play

Myth busting: Annual leave

The importance of good HR advice

Online medical certificates: An employer headache

The wage underpayment saga continues

Enterprise agreements come unstuck

Masterchef cooks up a Fair Work disaster

More HR myths busted

Annual leave changes causing confusion

Fair Work Ombudsman throws in the towel

6 facts about the penalty rates decision

Time to restore confidence in the Fair Work Commission

High hopes for Michaelia Cash, dashed

Small business won’t miss this Coalition Government

Two takeaways from the Pizza Hut pay saga

Why I'm with VP Watson

Forget pollie perks … what about the public service?

5 things on the small business wish list for 2017

Christmas closure confusion

Industrial relations in 2016: the good, the bad and the ugly

How the FWO let you down … again

Australia's "forgotten" working class

Competition and free enterprise … in the union movement?

Trump and the not-so-silent majority

Paying your employees annual salaries? Read this.

A tale of two countries

Time to treat employers and employees like grown-ups

Enforceable undertakings: Part of FWO’s arsenal?

Fixing the Fair Work system ... one case at a time

Workplace laws baffle small business

Tackling redundancy one step at a time

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!

Thousands of union members have been let down

Fair Work slowly begins falling apart

The ghost of WorkChoices haunts us all

The Fair Work Commission fiasco

The Fair Work Commission just doesn’t get small business

Changes to annual leave – what you need to know

Why employers need to stop Pokemon Go

Let’s set the record straight

Small business let down ... yet again

Employers caught in the crossfire

Small business deserves better

More Fair Work failures

Time to amend unfair dismissal laws

Australians pocket more money from July 1

Labor protects penalty rates? Good one!

I’ve found my dream job!

Why being underpaid is not always unlawful

7-Eleven wage scandal a classic PR disaster

Budget fudges it for SME employers

Why the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal needed to be abolished

The Fair Work fantasy

Wage fraud just the tip of the iceberg

Think HR doesn’t matter? Think again!

Fair Work in the real world

Industrial relations makes a comeback

Another Fair Work failure

One giant leap for the Fair Work Commission

With Fair Work, ignorance is bliss

Accountants and business advisors in Ombudsman’s sights

At long last, a courageous minister

Modern awards: is compliance optional?

The perils of bad advice

Instant dismissal isn’t instant at all

3 staffing tips for 2016

Finally, some light at the end of the tunnel

3 things we learned about employment law

Labor & the unions: wrong (yet) again

Is problem gambling a disability?

Unfair dismissal system still broken

Union membership in freefall

Thanks for nothing, Fair Work Ombudsman

Workplace bullying - fact vs fiction

Why the Royal Commission into trade unions matters

Time to walk the talk on IR Prime Minister

7-11 and the Fair Work fantasyland

Run a small business? You should be furious

When the Commission cancelled Christmas

How to respond to union threats

Bill Shorten versus the Royal Commission

Really want to help small business? Start with employment laws

Another year - another enthralling minimum wage order

When we no longer respect the law

Scott McIntyre alleges dismissal was 'adverse action'

Employment law lessons from the Brits

Time to end employment law partisanship

Employer associations still missing the point on modern awards

Why employers don't follow employment laws

$50 per Hour? Yes please!

Get the Fair Work Commission to enforce existing rules

Pixel_admin_thumb_300x300 Pixel_admin_thumb_300x300 Pixel_admin_thumb_300x300






-->