This update was written by Andie Manolopoulos (Associate) and Chris Gianatti (Director).
Want Workplace Relations & Safety updates delivered straight to your inbox? Click here to subscribe.
Welcome to KHQ’s quarterly update – and what a quarter it has been.
In February 2023, we provided you with a comprehensive update regarding the changes in Australia’s workplace relations law.
Given that a majority of the changes occurred on 6 June 2023, we thought in this quarterly update we’d take you through some of the major changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) with the amendments from the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (the Amending Act).
Nearly 2 months on from the introduction of the second tranche of changes in the Amending Act, we have also included some case law to watch and how the Fair Work Commission and Courts have been implementing and navigating in the new regime.
As you may be aware by now, from 1 July 2023 there have been changes to certain payments and requirements under the FW Act. As a reminder we have set out key updates to consider:
The second tranche of changes from the Amending Act have been rolled out. This tranche includes some of the major changes that will significantly impact the new era of enterprise bargaining and industrial relations. As a recap and to promote a thinking exercise, we have provided a brief snapshot of the main changes that have now taken effect:
While the new tranche of amendments to the Amending Act have been in force for over a month, we are yet to see significant case law which addresses these changes and provides some guidance as to how the framework will now work.
However, there has been a trickle of cases considering the new amendments and the impacts on employers and employees in the workplace. Below we have set out some key cases to watch and consider the new amendments.
The secrets revealed
In the case of Equans Electrical and Communications Pty Limited NSW Enterprise Agreement 2023-2026 [FWCA] 1705, the FWC has rejected an employer’s bid to redact a “commercially sensitive” list of clients included in its proposed agreement.
In her decision, Deputy President Dobson considered the new prohibition on pay secrecy set out in sections 333B, 333C and 333D of the FW Act. The Deputy President provided that the Applicant had made the decision itself to include the list in the proposed enterprise agreement to distinguish differing amounts of overtime payable to employees, but the Deputy President was of the view that this information could have been expressed differently. Therefore, the confidentiality order sought would be in breach of section 333B of the FW Act and declined to provide the confidentiality orders sought.
This indicates that pay secrecy does not just apply to situations where employees can discuss their pay in the office. Rather, it can apply to a range of pay-related discussions and terms relating to confidentiality of employees’ pay.
Test case – intractable bargaining declaration
On 21 July 2023 the FWC Full Bench was set to hear a bid by Virgin Australia Regional Airlines Pty Ltd (VARA) (a Virgin Australia subsidiary) for an intractable bargaining declaration. This was to be the first case to be held under the Amending Act’s new legislation regarding deadlock-breaking provisions. However, VARA discontinued its application on 20 July 2023 after unsuccessfully seeking an adjournment.
As a brief summary of the case, in the outline of submissions filed by VARA, pursuant to s234 VARA applied to the FWC for the making of an “intractable bargaining declaration” under s235 of the FW Act to replace the Virgin Australia Regional Airlines Aircraft Engineers (Western Australia) Enterprise Agreement 2017.
VARA claimed that the proposed enterprise agreement had been subject to very extensive, yet failed, bargaining between it and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA). While it was subject to short breaks, bargaining had been ongoing for 3 years for the proposed enterprise agreement. VARA also contended that, in accordance with s235 of the FW Act, it participated in seven Commission-assisted conciliation conferences and there was no reasonable prospects of certain of ALAEA’s terms being accepted.
The Commission has already refused to suspend engineers’ industrial action in mid-June 2023. Further, two earlier proposed agreements were voted down by more than 90% of employees.
While this was to be the first test case, we are sure there will be more to come as employers and bargaining representatives alike navigate the Amending Acts changes.
Zombies to remain dead
The FWC Full Bench has recently confirmed its decision to not extend the term of a zombie agreement, even though the extension was sought by both the employer and employees.
An application made by the Northern Inland Credit Union and two senior managers (see Application by Northern Inland Credit Union Limited and Kathy Bevan, Application by Northern Inland Credit Union Limited and Anna Lise Clark [2023] FWCFB 120) sought to extend their 2007 agreement by the maximum four years.
However, the Full Bench (comprising President Hatcher and Deputy Presidents Wright and Roberts) found that with the new amendments in the Amending Act, the 2007 agreement should not be extended. The Full Bench ultimately found that it would not be consistent with the Amending Act to consider the default position that zombie agreements should be allowed to continue to operate merely because parties agreed that this should occur.
Zombie keeps going
While the Northern Inland Credit Union’s zombie agreement has been put to rest, Nine2Three Employment Solutions Pty Ltd (t/a CIRCLE Recruitment) has extended its 2007 zombie agreement by an extra seven months (see Nine2Three Employment Solutions Pty Ltd t/a CIRCLE Recruitment & HR [2023] FWCFB 126). While the labour hire company attempted to convince the FWC to grant a 4-year extension, the Full Bench pushed back saying that such a lengthy extension would not be granted as the 2007 agreement, which was to expire in 2012, was less beneficial to employees than the Award which applied to them, namely the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020 (Clerks Award).
The 2007 agreement provides for 20% casual loading, as well as significantly lower rates than the Clerks Award and allows employees to ‘request or agree’ to work additional hours at their ordinary rate of pay. However, the company stated that it was severely affected by the pandemic, and was suffering from the inability to hold staff and recruit new staff. The company also stated that it had increased workers’ wages to be the same or ‘minimally higher’ than the Clerks Award and passed the BOOT.
However, the Full Bench found that that this did not arise through the 2007 agreement’s operation – rather it was just an administrative practice the company had adopted. However, given the requirement to apply the administrative steps of the Award to its current employees, the Full Bench allowed the extension of the 2007 agreement until 1 July 2024.
Another Act has received Royal Assent
While the Amending Act has been the topic of focus, we note that the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Act 2023 (PWE Act) has received Royal Assent. The PWE Act delivers the following further changes to the FW Act:
This removes the previous cap on 8 weeks of employee couples taking concurrent leave.
Public holidays continue
On 11 July 2023, BHP commenced its challenge in the High Court in relation to the full Federal Court’s ruling regarding public holiday work and when employees can reasonably refuse requests to work on public holidays.
As a quick recap, on 28 March 2023 the Full Federal Court ruled that OS MCAP unreasonably required up to 85 production employees to work across Christmas holidays in 2019. The Full Federal Court found that s114(2) of the FW Act permits an employer to request an employee to work on public holidays, and s114(3) allows that the request can be refused if it is not reasonable or refusal is reasonable. The Full Federal Court found that “request” had its ordinary meaning which meant that the employer could ask the question and the employee had a choice of whether to agree or refuse to work.
So this will be another “watch this space” case to see if there is any significant changes to the interpretations of the Full Federal Court’s decision.
Is it a customary practice?
Recently, in United Workers Union v Compass Group Health Hospitality Services Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 92, the Full Federal Court recently ruled that a major contractor could not rely on “ordinary and customary turnover of labour” provisions.
In 2018, the Compass Group lost an aged care contract after an almost 20 year relationship. Consequently, the Compass Group dismissed 21 of its employees, attempting to rely on the exception in s119(1)(a) of the FW Act to discharge its obligation to make redundancy payments to employees. The company tried to argue that due to the nature and duration of their employment, the exception applied.
The Full Court ultimately held that the company could not rely on ordinary and customary turnover of labour for the following reasons:
Therefore, the company was found to have been in contravention of s119(1)(a) of the FW Act for not paying employees their entitlements for redundancy pay for their respective continuous years of service.
We hope this has given you a crash course on some of the new and exciting things to consider with the changes implemented by the Amending Act.
In the meantime, we obviously love talking about this stuff so please do just give us a call if you want to shoot the breeze or scope out how you might seek to address the particular issues that will affect your business. It continues to be a big year!
This update was written by Andie Manolopoulos (Associate) and Chris Gianatti (Director).
Want Workplace Relations & Safety updates delivered straight to your inbox? Click here to subscribe.