News


- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- June 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
News
Employment Law News and Tips
November 29th, 2015
Release of draft Productivity Commission report
As reported in the media, the Productivity Commission recently released its draft report into the workplace relations framework.
The report summarised the current workplace relations system as “not dysfunctional” and in need of “repair not replacement”. It also reported: “Toxic relationships between employers and employees can sometimes surface due to poor relationship management rather than flaws in the WR framework”.
One of the most innovative proposals is a new form of agreement – the “enterprise contract”. This would fill the gap between enterprise agreements and individual arrangements and offer many of the advantages of enterprise agreements, without the complexities, making them particularly suitable for smaller businesses. Any risks to employees would be assuaged through a comprehensive set of protections, including the right to revert to the award.
The Commission is now receiving further submissions and holding public hearings before releasing its final report in November 2015.
When a conference or hearing is mandatory for unfair dismissal cases
I recently appeared before the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission sitting in Sydney in relation to an appeal against a jurisdictional decision.
Prior to making the original decision, the Commissioner wrote to the employee advising that unless he requested a hearing in person, a decision would be made on the basis of the written material filed only (ie. ‘on the papers’). The employee (unrepresented at the time) did not seek a hearing, was unsuccessful and appealed.
The Full Bench held that whenever there are “facts in dispute”, as was the case here, the Commission must conduct a conference or hold a hearing in person regardless of the wishes of the parties. As a hearing on the papers is not sufficient, the matter was remitted back for rehearing.
Tip: Unless it is clear there are no disputed facts in unfair dismissal matters, parties should, if given a choice, elect a conference or hearing in person to avoid the prospects of an appeal. This issue often arises when an employer raises a jurisdictional objection that may be dealt with prior to conciliation.
How to calculate compensation for unfair dismissal cases: the cap is the last consideration
The compensation cap for unfair dismissal matters is the lesser of $68,350.00 or the total amount of remuneration received by the employee (or entitled to receive) 26 weeks prior to the dismissal.
Sometimes, there is a mistaken view that the legislative cap on compensation operates as a maximum to be awarded in only the most serious or grievous cases. However, the cap is simply an arbitrary one and is the last consideration to take into account.
In allowing an appeal and awarding an employee full compensation, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission recently held that the following steps are to be followed:
- estimate the amount the employee would have received or would have been likely to receive if the employment had not been terminated;
- deduct monies earned since termination;
- deductions for contingencies;
- calculate any impact of taxation;
- deductions for any misconduct; and
- apply the legislative cap.
Tip: Employers should beware the long-standing employee. Absent any evidence suggesting the employment relationship might have come to an end (eg. resignation or lawful termination) the Commission will more readily accept a submission that the employee expected to work for 12 months or more. This often outweighs other discounting factors resulting in an award of compensation equal to the legislative cap.
For more information about this issue and all employment and industrial relations matters, please contact Elaine Jesurasingham, Partner on 07 4036 9700.
More