A small business owner has been praised at Fair Work Australia for her efforts to keep her workers employed while keeping her financially troubled business afloat, but at the same time has been ordered to pay eight weeks’ wages to an employee for unfair dismissal and failing to provide procedural fairness.
The owner, who had sought advice from the Fair Work Ombudsman about changing her employees’ employment status from part-time to casual, gave four employees a letter at a meeting which advised their employment would be terminated for operational reasons, and provided a document explaining they would be offered casual employment for the same hours and wage rates.
One employee, who had been in dispute with the owner for some time, lodged an unfair dismissal claim after deciding not to accept the casual offer of employment. Three other employees accepted the new casual employment arrangements with no dispute.
The owner initially thought the new employment arrangements were accepted by all affected employees, however after two weeks without communication with the employee, decided to back fill her role.
The owner acknowledged to Fair Work Australia that she had mistakenly used an employee termination letter template to provide these new employment arrangements to the employees. The employer’s intention was to change the employees’ employment status, not to terminate their employment.
Commissioner David Steel found that the employee was dismissed and stated that there was a valid reason for dismissal, being that the employer had to take action to resolve the financial performance of the business and reduce costs by changing the employees’ employment arrangements. However, the employee was not provided with a fair termination process and therefore the dismissal was deemed harsh and unfair.
The employee said due to her dispute with the owner, which had been ongoing for about a year and stemmed from a successful underpayment claim and reduction in hours, she had no confidence that she would be provided with reliable hours of work.
Commissioner Steel found that it was almost certain that the employment relationship “was not going to endure” in any case due to their dispute, but did define the end of that relationship as dismissal and ruled it to be unfair as it did not provide the employee with due process.
“The (employee) was given notice of dismissal which would come into effect at the end of her shift. It is apparent it was a shock,” Commissioner Steel wrote.
Commissioner Steel noted the newsagency owner was open with her evidence and that she had sought advice on a number of occasions from the Fair Work Ombudsman and other financial advisors to keep her business financially viable. However her process of transferring her employees to new contracts ultimately highlights the extreme levels of care that need to be taken by any small business owner.
The ANF Suggest that employers contemplating downsizing or changing operations have a range of obligations to consider. Advice should be sought prior to entering into discussions with staff, in order to understand the range of matters that may give rise to a claim against a business in these circumstances. Please contact the ANF or your state association for relevant professional IR advice.
Published on the Vecci Blog
ANF IR News
A newsagent who wanted to convert all their permanent employees to casual has been told by Fair Work Australia that the process they used was unfair. The newsagent has been ordered to pay eight weeks compensation. The ANF contacted the newsagent who is a member of the ANF and asked for permission to share their difficult experience with our other members, so that anyone facing similar challenges can learn from this member’s painful experience. They kindly agreed, which we appreciate given the circumstances.
Case Study - Converting employees to casual comes undone for newsagent
The business had been experiencing financial difficulties for some time, and the newsagent consulted with various authorities, including the Fair Work Ombudsman and the State Chamber of Commerce, from whom they received advice that they could employ their employees as casuals. The newsagent wished to convert their employees to enable them to pay out accrued leave entitlements as those entitlements were at risk should the business fail.
Four of the permanent part time employees accepted the change in employment status. One employee, who had been a permanent part time employee for more than ten years, objected to being converted to casual employment, and left the premises without taking up the offer of casual employment.
Additionally, the ex-employee and the newsagent had had a difficult working relationship for some time, as the ex-employee had made numerous complaints to authorities about the newsagent with respect to wages and safety matters. By the time the employee’s employment was terminated, neither party would meet without a witness being present.
The tribunal acknowledged that having a significant number of
‘grievance claims by the employee resulting in the requirements by various authorities (Fair Work Ombudsman, Australian Taxation Office, Safework SA etc) on a small business must have had a significant effect on the parties. Though legitimately available to an employee and within their rights, such multiple claims would be distracting and confronting to the respondent at such a critical time for their business.”
It was concluded that the relationship was not going to endure and would have to have been concluded within a short period of time.
Although it was found that the employee had been dismissed for a valid reason – the financial difficulties of the business – the process used was found to be unfair. The meeting at which all employees were told of their forced change from part time to casual employment was a communal meeting, employees had little opportunity to question the newsagent about the proposed change, and the change was effectively framed as compulsory.
Although the newsagent had sought advice on the situation, either the advice given lacked veracity or was incomplete; or the employer misunderstood the information at the time.
In a situation where an employer wishes to change an employee’s employment status, it should be understood that the employee’s status is part of the contract of employment and cannot be changed without the agreement of both parties. Alternatively, the employer must be able to demonstrate that the termination of the employee’s employment met the following criteria:
· There was a valid reason for the termination of the employment (relating to performance, behaviour, or redundancy);
· The employee was notified of the reason;
· The employee had an opportunity to respond to allegations;
· If the termination is because of the employee’s performance, that the employee had been warned;
· The employer did not unreasonably fail to allow an employee to have a support person present.
This is an unfortunate example as the newsagent has made the changes with the very best of intentions for their employees but the process was incomplete and has been deemed to be unfair.
The difficult lesson from this experience is that it is worthwhile making sure that when you get advice, you clearly understand the process that should be undertaken before proceeding.
ANF CEO reports on magazine and newspaper issues
I have recently come back from Brisbane after spending a day with the QNF and Network Services in looking at different areas of how to improve the distribution of their titles. It was a very positive meeting, with some positive action items to be followed up on.
One topic that has come up with each magazine distributor is the admission that they do have a record of the number of pockets or number of sub agents each newsagent has. This is something that we believe the associations can help them with by putting together a national survey. We will be working together to try and get this information from all newsagents, in the near future; with this type of survey and having a better understanding of newsagency benchmarks will help each association work better for you.
The newspaper distribution model is still causing anguish across the country. In the eastern states there has been projects set up by News and Fairfax in regards to the “New Distribution Model”; many months have gone by with many hours of meetings attended by all association as well as individual newsagents. Still no further news is forthcoming as to how what and when the model will change. The Associations are still working on this with both publishers, and we will keep you up to date as progress is made.
ANF BOARD MEETING THIS WEEK. Have you any questions for the Board?
Email today to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
In NSW, the ACT, Victoria and Queensland, the ANF works in unity with your state associations to protect members' interests and improve the profile of the newsagency industry at a public and corporate level. For IR resources in your state or terrotiry, please visit the website of your state association using the links below.
|
|
![]() |
|
|
| VICTORIA: VANA |
Click HERE to pre-order your WHS Solution.
Partnerships--Pathways to Prosperity Newsagency industry conference 2012
Contact: info@homeandgiving.com or call 1300 441 384 during business hours. Visit www.homeandgiving.com for more information.