четверг, 8 января 2015 г.

Австралия (трудовые отношения) Желание осуществлять работу иным способом - увольнение

Workplace Bulletin
Home | About UsTwitter LinkedIn

When is an employee entitled to complain about 


Wednesday, 7th January 2015, by Loran McDougall

In today's Workplace Bulletin:
  • Case Law: Is an employee who raises concerns about work processes protected from adverse action?
Dear Reader,

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), employees are protected from having adverse action, including dismissal, taken against them for exercising a workplace right.
Today’s bulletin focuses on an employee’s right to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to their employment. Given that it is not clear exactly how closely related to their employment an employee’s complaint or inquiry must be to be considered a workplace right, the recent case that Charles Power summarises in today’s bulletin is particularly interesting.
Its outcome indicates that, as an employer, you should be cautious in taking adverse action against an employee who makes a complaint or inquiry about their employment – such a complaint or inquiry could relate to anything from the employee’s rights and entitlements, to how work is performed, to their relationship with a third party.
To be on the safe side, assume that taking adverse action against an employee for making this kind of complaint or inquiry could lead to an adverse action claim.
Read on for the details of the recent court decision surrounding this issue.
Until next time,
Jessica Oldfield
Loran McDougall
Workplace Bulletin
When conflict arises in your workplace or an allegation of misconduct is made, you need to get on with finding a resolution as quickly as you can. This essential guide will show you how...

Case Law: Is an employee who raises concerns about work processes protected from adverse action?
by Charles Power
Editor-in-Chief, Employment Law Practical Handbook
In Evans v Trilab Pty Ltd (2014), a new state manager at a soil and rock classification testing company raised concerns with his superiors regarding how the company was undertaking testing. His view was that a wet testing method should have been used in order to comply with the relevant Australian Standards.
The chairman of the company’s board of directors responded by telling the employee to use the dry testing method and stop telling other staff they were using the wrong method. Four days later – after only 3 weeks of being employed by the company – the employee was dismissed. The employer’s reasoning was that the employee:
  • refused to adopt the dry testing method;
  • had a disastrous performance review; and
  • had not completed the proficiency test as requested.
The employee brought an adverse action claim under the FW Act, alleging that he had been dismissed for exercising a workplace right – that is, his right to make a complaint or inquiry.
The company responded by claiming that the termination had been entirely due to performance issues. It made an application to the Federal Circuit Court to summarily dismiss the employee’s application on the basis that his complaint regarding the company’s testing methods did not constitute a workplace right under section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the FW Act.
In determining whether the complaint did constitute a workplace right, the Court considered:
  • the employee’s duties, including his leadership in the laboratory, his day-to-day management and his overall responsibility for test results;
  • the legal precedent “that it is arguable that a complaint or inqury need:
    • not arise from a statutory, regulatory or contractual provision before it can be a complaint or inquiry in relation to a person's employment for the purposes of s.341(1)(c)(ii) of the FW Act; and
    • only have an indirect nexus with a person's terms or conditions of employment to come within the scope of s.341(1)(c)(ii), and may be a complaint about the conduct of another person in the workplace or about a workplace process which concerns or has implications for an employee's employment".
The Court concluded that, even though the employee’s questions regarding the company’s testing methods had no basis in any statutory, regulatory or contractual right or entitlement, the employee may still be entitled to make that complaint/inquiry. It therefore ruled that the employee’s claim be determined at a hearing.
Charles Power
Charles Power

Employment Law Practical Handbook

Like the Workplace Bulletin? Check out our other free bulletins:
Health & Safety BulletinHealth & Safety BulletinAll the latest tips, tools and strategies you need to help you stay on top of health and safety laws. Click here to sign up now.

Self-Managed Super FundSelf–Managed Super Fund Bulletin
Receive all the information, ideas and tips you need to manage your own super fund. Click here to sign up now.

Please whitelist the Workplace Bulletin to make sure you get every edition delivered to your inbox.
The information in this email is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please return the message to the sender and delete it from your records. All content is © 2007-2015 Portner Press Pty Ltd All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer: We research our recommendations and articles thoroughly, but disclaim all liability for any inaccuracies or omissions found in our publications. Click here to view our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.
Queries: For general enquiries, email cs@portnerpress.com.au or call 1300 782 911.
Workplace Helpdesk: Paid subscribers to the Employment Law Handbook can ask our experts for advice.
Syndication: To republish a Workplace Bulletin article, please email cs@portnerpress.com.au for information.
Workplace Bulletin ISSN 1836-117X
Portner Press Pty Ltd
96-98 Bridport Street
Albert Park VIC 3206