Posts

Casual Wage Theft and the Fair Work Ombudsman

,

Thousands of casual miners working in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are each owed, on average, around $33,000 per year in back pay, making them victims of Australia’s largest wage theft.

During my discussion with Ms. Booth and Mr. Scully, I inquired about the calculator that people can use to determine if they are being paid correctly under an Agreement or Award. It is crucial for workers to be paid at least the award rate of pay.

Ms. Booth described the calculator as an interactive template designed to cover all the awards.

An analysis of five significant labour hire coal mining enterprise agreements operating in Queensland and the Hunter Valley, all involving the CFMEU, revealed that all five agreements underpaid the award – see below. I also asked Ms. Booth to provide information on how many requests for assistance had been made relating to underpayments by the Chandler Macleod Group regarding the black coal industry.

It’s worth noting that in the Black Coal Mining Industry Award, there are no rates of pay specified for casuals, raising questions about how so-called “casuals” can use the FWO pay calculator.

The Five Agreements that Underpaid the Award

Per Person – Per Year – On Average
The Core Staff Enterprise Agreement 2018 $22,600
The FES Enterprise Agreement 2018$27,000
The Workpac Enterprise Agreement 2019$33,500
The Chandler Macleod Agreement 2020 $39,340
The TESA Group agreement 2022$40,000

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again, Ms Booth and Mr Scully. 

Ms Booth: A great pleasure, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: I refer to the Fair Work Ombudsman website and the black coal mining industry award that asks ‘Pay and entitlements less than the award?’ The Fair Work Ombudsman’s answer is, and I quote, 

Employees must be paid at least award pay rates and entitlements. 

There’s another instruction or invitation: 

If your pay rates are less than the award, go to Help resolving workplace issues to follow our step by step guide on how you can fix it. 

Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have a standard process or template it uses to assess whether an employee is being paid less than the award? 

Ms Booth: The Fair Work Ombudsman has a pay calculator that allows anyone—an employee or an employer—to provide information as requested. It calculates the correct award rate. That is the case for all sectors. 

Senator ROBERTS: So it doesn’t have a template, but an individual can step his or her way through it? 

Ms Booth: I think the pay calculator could be described as a template. But it’s interactive. It’s a series of smart forms that you complete and then you get a response at the end which tells you what the award rate is. For further information on the pay calculator, I could turn to my supporters here. Mr Scully, would you like to talk more about the pay calculator for Senator Roberts? 

Mr Scully: We call it PACT, which is pay and conditions tool. It is an online calculator that has hundreds and thousands of pay combinations and calculations that can be provided and is tailored to the particular award and classification and the like that the user keys in. It is a very popular tool. I think last financial year, something like 6.4 million people used it. There were something like 7.1 million pay calculations provided, I think, for the year, so it’s widely used by the community. 

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a template that an individual can attempt to check? 

Mr Scully: Correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that tailored to cover pay rates subject to the coverage of the black coal mining industry award and the rosters that are used in Central Queensland and Hunter Valley? 

Mr Scully: It covers all awards, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I know it is a very complex situation involving the 12-hour rosters in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland. 

Mr Scully: I would need to check that. I don’t know that it would go to the rosters. It is more awards and classifications. It goes to weekday rates and weekends and shift penalties and the like. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a very complex roster. People have difficulty. Would the Fair Work Ombudsman agree to undertake an assessment with regard to the application of coal enterprise agreements and provide the outcomes to me? 

Ms Booth: The Fair Work Ombudsman certainly will respond to any employee who has a question. We will provide information. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that current employees or can they be past employees? 

Ms Booth: I will ask Mr Scully to answer that question on the basis that the info line is available to anyone. We don’t ask people to verify their employment status. I’m going to say that anyone can ring the info line and ask a question. Would that be right, Mr Scully? You would not have to be an employee to ring the info line and ask a question? We don’t seek to verify people’s employment status? 

Mr Scully: That is correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t thinking about calling up myself. I was thinking about past people who have left the industry but have been underpaid dramatically. 

Ms Booth: So when a call comes, information is given. If that information doesn’t satisfy the caller and the caller still has a dispute that they regard as unresolved, we call it a request for assistance. We identify that and we move it through to an assessment team. That assessment team will speak directly with the employer and the employee and attempt to resolve the matter. I think you also know that it will go forward beyond that through inspector support to our investigator and inspectors to conduct investigations should it not be resolved by the assessment team. That is the pathway. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. By the way, a team of workplace lawyers, consultants and coalminers reviewed and analysed five significant labour hire coal mining enterprise agreements and the work roster that are operating in Queensland and the Hunter Valley. The CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union were involved in, or were a party to or signed off on, all five agreements. The Fair Work Commission approved all five agreements. The enterprise agreements all underpay the award. The core staff agreement, for example, 2018 enterprise agreement yearly underpayment is estimated at $22,600. The FES agreement 2018 yearly underpayment is estimated at $27,500. The WorkPac agreement 2019 yearly underpayment is estimated at $33,500. The Chandler Macleod agreement 2020 yearly underpayment of casuals is estimated at $39,341. The TESA Group agreement 2022 yearly underpayment was estimated at over $40,000. But let’s come back. Between 2012 and the present day, could you please provide the number of requests for assistance made regarding underpayments by the Chandler Macleod group relating specifically to the black coal mining industry award and associated enterprise agreements? 

Ms Booth: I think we’d have to take a question like that on notice. We collect information at the info line on a range of demographics. I wouldn’t be sure whether we could go to that degree of disaggregation. I think it is important to reinforce that the Fair Work Ombudsman enforces the law as it exists. As you know, a fair work instrument includes an enterprise agreement that has been approved by the Fair Work Commission. We don’t play a role in interrogating the approvability or otherwise of such an instrument. Once it is in existence, we must take it on its face value. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You can take it on notice. Again, in relation to Chandler Macleod and the black coal mining industry award, how many requests for assistance were closed with the following general determinations—under the award, you can be casual; the 2007 workplace agreement covered your employment; or the insertion of section 15A into the Fair Work Act determines you are a casual? You can take that on notice, too, please. 

Ms Booth: It would certainly be a degree of detail that I do not have at my fingertips. Is there anything, Mr Scully, you can say about that? 

Mr Scully: I can only advise that from July 2019 to 31 December 2023, we resolved 30 disputes that relate to the coal mining industry. I haven’t got any further details about that. There are 30 over the last 4½ years. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Scully, that’s in coal. This is specifically Chandler Macleod and the black coal mining industry award. You will have to take this on notice too. How many proceeded to the investigation stage? Have any of them not been formally closed? If so, which ones? Thank you, Mr Scully. Thank you, Ms Booth. Thank you, Chair. 

/by

Labor Abandons Miners

,

Labor voted down my amendment that would backpay miners who have been ripped off by dodgy union deals signed off by the government.

This is what I’m doing about it: senroberts.com/48vbjqm

Casual Coal Wage Theft

/by

ABC Interview: Union bosses neck deep in casual exploitation – Closing loopholes

, ,

The union bosses claim that Labor’s latest Industrial Relations legislation will “close the loophole” of casual workers being paid less than permanents, especially in the mining sector.

You can’t step on site without a union enterprise bargaining agreement, so how are casual workers getting ripped off when they’re working under union negotiated agreements?

The answer is that some union bosses are getting kickbacks from labour hire companies in exchange for passing through dodgy agreements that allow casuals to be exploited.

The Fair Work Commission is meant to stop this, but they’re either asleep at the wheel or deliberately not doing their job.

Transcript

1 November 2023

Presenter

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment, known as the, “Closing Loopholes Bill,” held its hearings in Rockhampton this week. Announced by the federal government in September, the Closing Loopholes Bill aims to criminalise wage theft, introduce minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, close the forced permanent casual worker loophole, and close the labour hire loophole.

It’s all about that thing that we’ve been talking about for yonks, and that is, if you’re doing the same job as someone else, you should get the same pay. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts is in Rockhampton for the hearings, and he’s been raising the issue of the exploitation of the permanent casual workers in CQ miners for years. Frazer Pearce asked him if the proposed legislation would provide a better outcome for miners.

Malcolm Roberts

Look, my position on this Fair Work Act for a start, the current act as it stands, without Labor’s latest draft amendments, is 1,200 pages long, and they’re wanting to add another 800 pages. It already makes the workers vulnerable because there’s no way any single worker or small business can understand it; and it helps the IR club. All regulations in that help the major groups like the major banks, the big pharma, and the Industrial Relations Club.

That’s the lawyers, the Union bosses, the Industry Associations for multinational companies. It hurts the workers. I’ve seen that firsthand in Hunter, the Hunter Valley, and in Central Queensland. The second point I’d make is that we wouldn’t be having this inquiry if it wasn’t for the fact that the cross bench has moved it to extend the opportunity, to extend the reporting date from October through to next February. We would not be here listening to the views of industry unions and individual workers, if it wasn’t for the fact that we got an extension till next February.

The Labor Party voted against that extension. They don’t want to listen to people. We voted in favour of it. It’s a very important bill. It’s a huge bill. Big ramifications for workers as well as all players in the industry. The third point I’d make is that current employment in the coal industry at least, is that illegal employment of casual, supposedly casual, in coal is only possible, only possible, with a mining and energy union endorsed enterprise agreement.

We’ve seen that. I can go into detail if you need, but this is probably not the time. But the Mining Union in the Hunter Valley in particular, and to some extent in Central Queensland, has been passing enterprise agreements that do not protect the basic rights of workers. They don’t meet the award criteria as a basic minimum. They don’t meet the National Employment standards as a basic minimum.

They have been selling out workers in the coal industry and what we need for a solution is just a simple enforcement of the Fair Work Act. Now, early on in the proceedings and dealing with these issues, I proposed the, “Same work, same pay” bill. It’s very simple bill. But what I’ve since realised in doing more work, listening to miners, is that all that’s needed is to enforce the current Fair Work Act.

Frazer Pearce

What’s the level of, do you think of exploitation against these workers? Are you saying it’s widespread or it’s just isolated?

Malcolm Roberts

Yes, it’s widespread and it varies in severity. They’re paying well below the award and as I said, the award is the basic minimum. They have not done , they’ve not done the boot test, which is the, “better off overall test”. And that’s how these dodgy agreements have got through that are shafting coal miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. They have left out basic leave entitlements.

They don’t pay casual loading. Casuals are not legally allowed to be employed in the coal industry other than in a dodgy agreement, which is unlawful in itself; because they bypass the normal processes. People are missing out on leave entitlement. People are, as a result of being hired casual, short term, are threatened with dismissal at any time, people are afraid to raise safety incidents.

There’s a culture of fear there. There’s a culture of fear at many mines from people standing up and and afraid of standing up. There’s also been a lack of reporting of injuries. New South Wales in particular, we suspect also Queensland. There’s a, basically there’s a loss in some cases of workers insurance, workers’ compensation, accident pay. These are fundamental rights.

Frazer Pearce

Is this going to be a strong platform for you in the next election? Was it a vote winner for you in the last one?

Malcolm Roberts

We don’t do things to get votes. We do things because they’re right.

Presenter

That’s One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts having a chat with ABC Capricornia Frazer Pearce, talking about the closing loopholes bill. The hearing’s being held in Rockhampton at the moment. It’s a couple of minutes to eight.

/1 Comment/by

Fair Work Commission – Award Modernisation & Small Business

, ,

The one thing we here again and again from small businesses is that Industrial Relations in this country is simply too confusing. You just about have to be a specialised lawyer to simply employ someone and be across all of the applicable legislation. The awards and language need to be made much simpler if small business has a hope of surviving. A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, and a way to punish dodgy employers who dishonestly try to break the rules: that should be the simple basics of industrial relations but we’ve complicated it far too much

Transcript

Senator Roberts.

[Roberts] Thank you Chair.

Thank you again for being here today. My questions cover a broad range. In the Fair Work Commission statement, dated 9th of April, 2021, regarding the Casual Terms Award reviewed 2021. This review must be completed by 27th of September, 2021. Are you on target for this date? And what has been identified as going over that date so far?

[Luby] Uh…

[Furlong] Ms. Luby

Thanks Mr. Furlong, I’ll take this one as well. Thanks Senator. Yes, the Fair Work Commission is definitely on target for that. That’s a date that was set in the statute and where we’re working towards that. So the Commission has issued a number of information papers outlining the range of casual terms that are found in Modern Awards. A full bench has been listed for hearing to consider a small group of Awards that cover either a large range of employees or have sort of quirky casual terms. And so that’ll be some, I guess some principles or precedent will be set by that full bench and then that will be applied to the remaining Modern Awards. So we’re working through that.

[Roberts] Okay.

With respect.

[Roberts] Thank you. Now from the Casual Terms Award Review 2021, at 12 and 13 of the Fair Work Commission Statement, I note that the Black Coal Mining Industry Award, MA000001, has not been included in the initial review. Yet, the background of that is that there’s a lot of confusion and uncertainty, in the black coal mining industry, because there was no provision in the award for casuals on production. But nonetheless, the Hunter Valley CFMEU did a deal to get that into the Enterprise Agreements. So that meant because there was no award provision, there was no, basically anybody under that EA was locked into permanent casual rort and they couldn’t get out. Now with the legislation that the government introduced in March, there is a pathway to permanent work for all casuals, but I think it needs to be clarified as quickly as possible. Many everyday Australians think it should have priority, the Black Coal Mining Award should have priority for definition of a casual mine production worker, given the harm it’s done to so many casual black coal miners, the lack of that definition. Can you ensure that this Award is reviewed promptly, please?

Senator, well, obviously it’s not for me to determine what order that the Awards are looked at. That’s a matter for the President and full bench presiding over that. I’d just like to clarify that the purpose of these proceedings are to determine whether the casual terms in the Awards are compliant or not contradictory with the terms that were introduced in the Supporting Employment Bill. It doesn’t go to whether there are entitlements to casual work in a particular Award. The issue of whether there should be the possibility of casual engagement under the Black Coal Award, was considered as part of the Four Yearly Review. And I think Mr. Furlong spoke into that previous estimates and it’s been covered in some of our Questions on Notice. That’s perhaps a different issue that could be raised at, and it could be raised at any time, if the parties were to seek to include a casual term for those production employees under the Black Coal Award.

[Roberts] Okay, so there’s nothing to stop a casual worker, who’s on permanent casual rort at the moment, thanks to Enterprise Agreements, from actually casual conversion, if they’re offered that conversion now?

No, I’m sorry Senator. There is no provision for casual employment for a production employee under the Black Coal Award.

So if I might. My understanding of the legislation it covers, because it’s been placed into National Employment Standards, it applies broader than all the Awards. So if someone is a casual, whether there’s an Award term for casuals or not, then the provisions within the Act will apply. So yes, there is a pathway to conversion because it’s been put into the National Employment Standards.

[Roberts] Okay, so thank you. So it overall

[Luby] Thank you, Mr. Hehir. Sorry.

[Roberts] It overrides the Award. So, people

[Luby] I apologise I apologise Senator for not getting that.

[Roberts] Yeah. So just to be clear Mr. Hehir, the people who are working as casuals, when the changes were made in March, will now have access to conversion once they’re offered?

So that’s my understanding because it’s been placed into the National Employment Standards. It expands beyond the award system and does apply more broadly.

[Roberts] Thank you. Because there are a lot of people cursing Enterprise Agreements that basically locked them into permanent casuals. How long after this review

[O’Neill] If I could get your attention Mr. Roberts. We asked a couple questions yesterday about these matters with the conversion. Under 15 employees, there will be a different

[Hehir] Thank you Senator

[O’Neill] situation.

[Hehir] O’Neill.

[O’Neill] But I guess one of the things that we got yesterday that’s important was it’s a test of reasonableness about whether those coal miners will actually be able to

[Roberts] Oh that test is

[O’Neill] Get

[Roberts] Yeah.

[O’Neill] the reasonableness

[Hehir] I think

[O’Neill] Test. Yep, yep.

[Hehir] reasonableness is the goal Senator O’Neill.

Yep.

[Hehir] Well I’m sure…

[O’Neill] Well it’s it’s gonna matter

[Hehir] Council, Senator Roberts.

[Roberts] In the Fair Work Commission Statement, dated 9th of April, 2021 regarding the Casual Terms Award Review 2021 at 12, I note the hesitancy regarding the definition of simple terms. Can you advise if your concerns over language will hold up the review process or have they been resolved?

No Senator. I think that we’re still on track to meet that deadline of the 27th of September.

[Roberts] Thank you. So we’ve been advocating for a fair go for Australian workers for a while now. Since the last Senate estimates round, can you tell me what due diligence has been put in place for Fair Work Commissioners to use to ensure that the boot analysis improves and that we do not see any more failures like the Chandler MacLeod Northern District of New South Wales Black Coal Mining Agreement of 2015? My understanding is that there was no Enterprise Agreement. The Chandler MacLeod initially employed miners under the Award, where there was no provision for casuals. Then they came up with the Enterprise Agreement and that breached the boot test from what we can work out. So we need to make sure that miners are protected in future with Enterprise Agreements that comply with the boot test. Can you tell me what’s being done like that to make sure there’s no more failures?

Just a couple of things on this, Senator. It’s actually been on notice and to a reasonable sort of extent, in relation to the decision about the Chandler MacLeod Agreement, it was approved by Senior Deputy President Harrison. And while the decision was short, she did go to the boot, the analysis of the boot. Ms. Luby can provide further and better detail on it. But every agreement application that is made to the Commission undergoes a very comprehensive, administrative checklist and was performed by specially skilled staff to ensure that the statutory requirements and pre-lodgement provisions are satisfied. And in terms of Ms. Luby saying that 95% of those applications are made and provided to members within five days, that is the process that is undertaking that first step.

[Roberts]Okay, I’m having a lot of trouble hearing you or understanding. Could you just explain, perhaps you could explain. I understand that you’ve given us a reassurance that the process is going to be followed. Could you please explain the boot analysis process? What are the main steps that the commission now undertakes and is it applied appropriately to each case?

The answer to that question is easy, yes. There’s a legislative checklist that is completed by as I said specially trained staff at the Commission. The template of that checklist is available on our website as well. If you’d like to have a look at it, we can certainly table it for you to have a look at. Bit it is a consistent checklist that is performed for every Enterprise Agreement application that is made.

[Roberts] Okay, thank you. I heard it clearly that time, so we’ll check that checklist ourself. We’ve heard that some union bosses are saying that it is the worker’s responsibility not the unions for what is put to the Commission in relation to Enterprise Agreements. Can you tell me then how you ensure that the workers themselves are happy with the Agreement? And what checks do you have to make sure that you’re satisfied that it’s the workers that are happy with the Enterprise Agreement?

Ms. Luby might want to add to this. Effectively there’s an access period, a statutory access period, Senator. That all, every employee who’s to be covered by that Enterprise Agreement has got access to that Agreement and that the employer has gone to reasonable lengths to explain the terms of the impact of that Enterprise Agreement. Ms. Luby would you like to add anything to that?

Sure, Mr. Furlong. So I guess there’s a few strands to it that the member who assesses the application will look at whether the terms and the effect of the terms of the Agreement were effectively explained to the employees. That’s an important test that’s been the subject of a number of federal court decisions and quite clearly laid out, in terms of the level of detail that must be explained to the employees to give them an opportunity to vote in an informed way. And then clearly there is the vote itself, so that there must be a majority of employees who vote for the agreement, who vote in favour of it. So they’re the primary tests.

[Roberts] Thank you.

We’re also quite transparent about the fact that an application has been made. So an employee will have an opportunity to make a submission to the Commission if they choose to do so.

[Roberts] So what recourse do workers have through the Commission or anywhere else, where a union boss fails to do what they promise to bargain for or where they might ignore workers’ needs in favour of their own interests? How do we make sure union bosses’ held accountable in this process for approving an EA, Enterprise Agreement?

I think Senator, the Commission, as I said, we are quite transparent in terms of when an application is lodged. It’s always published on our website immediately. So it’s available for the employees to see before the application is approved. And during that time it’s not uncommon for an employee to contact the Commission and their email or letter that they put in will be sent directly to the member who’s dealing with the application. So if they’ve raised any concerns that will be brought to the member’s attention.

[Roberts] So what you’re saying is, it seems reasonable to me. What you’re saying is that if an employee has concerns about the employer, or the union bosses, that they need to go and check themselves and take responsibility for the Enterprise Agreement themselves before they vote.

Um..

[Roberts] Vote, inform themselves

[Luby] I guess

[Roberts] So they vote in an informed way.

Yes, definitely and it’s the employer’s responsibility to inform them of the effect of the Agreement.

[Roberts] Thank you.

[Luby] So that’s an quite a proactive step that the employer needs to take.

[Roberts] Okay. Have they been

[Furlong] Senator may I also, sorry. I may also be of assistance. If an Agreement is reached, or past its normal expiry date, a party of the employees covered by that Enterprise Agreement, that is past its normal expiry date, can make an application for that Agreement to be terminated.

[Roberts] Okay, so it gets fairly complicated, doesn’t it, quickly? Have there been any cases regarding casual conversion put to the Commission for determination since the changes to the Fair Work Act earlier this year? And if so, how many And what have been the issues and the results?

Senator, I can take that one. There’s been one application so far, under the new section 66M, that application was an employee in the social and community services sector. It was only recently received and it’s been allocated to a member for hearing.

[Roberts] Okay, so one application for an appeal to conversion. Correct?

Yes.

[Roberts] Thank you.

That’s correct.

[Roberts] Now moving onto another topic. Have wage theft cases increased or decreased in the last 12 months?

That’s a matter for the Fair Work Ombudsman. I understand that they’re giving evidence later this evening.

[Roberts] Yes, we’ve got some questions for them. Thank you. Small business owners frequently find that the cost of being away from work to defend a sometimes spurious, unfair dismissal case or other complaint is too much and they end up paying “go away” money, which everyone knows about, to the employee. What is the Fair Work Commission doing, or what could you do, to help small businesses and small business employees, especially given that they’ve done the heavy lifting during the COVID restrictions and downturn? And many are finding it hard now, both employees and small businesses.

I’m not too sure. I understand that the notes of the term “go away” money, Senator. I can’t say that I necessarily agree with it. There are, we receive approximately 15,000 unfair dismissal applications every year. About 80% of those applications are resolved through agreement, through reconciliation process.

[Roberts] What percentage, sir? I’m sorry.

About 80%.

[Roberts] Thank you.

For those that and the vast majority of them are conducted online, so on the telephone, at a time that hopefully suits both of the parties through that process. And there is no obligation, for the parties, the small business that you’re talking about employers to the employees, and to the applicants to settle but if they arrive at a settlement through that process, then the matter is finalised. They can obviously decide not to settle at that point and have the matter dealt with by a member through arbitration.

[Roberts] Okay.

Ms. Carruthers, anything else you’d like to add to that?

Thank you, Mr. Furlong. Senator I might just add as a useful bit of context, that in about 2/3 of cases where money is paid, it’s for less than $6,000. So they are modest amounts of money that are paid when payments are made. And payments are made in around 80% of matters that are settled.

[Roberts] Yeah, my point is that the Fair Work Act, when it’s printed out is about that thick, laid on its side, it’s that thick. It is so damn complex that employees and employers, don’t know what, small business employers and employees, don’t know where they stand. Many employees right across industry, all sizes of companies, don’t know where they stand and that’s not good enough. So with that, there comes, it’s much easier for one to rort the other, employer to rort the employee, and also for people to avoid accountability. So the complexity of the Fair Work Act is really hindering employment and hindering the employer-employee relationship, which is the fundamental relationship on a workplace. So that’s why I’m asking that question because we know talking to small businesses, listening to them, that they are not hiring people at times because of the complexity and their fear of what will happen. And we’ve got to remove that.

Senator there is a part of your question that we didn’t get to is about what we can do or what we are doing. There are a couple of very large projects that are underway at the moment to improve the services of the Commission. One of them, and it’s a very large project, is the redevelopment of our website. And at the moment, the language used on our website is, it’s technical. One of the major change, one of the major improvements, is there’s going to be, the new website is going to be written in very accessible, plain language. We’re aiming for someone with a year level literacy of eight to 10. We’ve also just kicked off a forms redevelopment project that applies or that will be applying data and behavioural insights, so behavioural economic insights. To ensure that the regulatory burden associated with making these applications and that people are informed, as best as they possibly can be, are a part of the process. So we are looking at ways that we can improve our service delivery and we’re acting on them at the moment.

[Roberts] Well, thank you. That’s encouraging. Fundamentally though, the Fair Work Act is highly complex and it doesn’t matter how we dress it up in practical language, it’s still going to be complex. That makes it difficult for both employees and employers to know what they’re accountable for and what their entitlements are. I appreciate you raising that. Thank you. Last questions on just another topic here. Can you please undertake to inform on the status of the Award Modernisation process that you’re undertaking?

You’re referring to the Four Yearly Review of Modern Award are you Senator?

[Roberts] Yes.

Okay. Do you have any questions in particular about the review? It’s a very, very large piece of work.

[Roberts] Is it progressing on schedule?

It is. It’s very close to being finalised. There are a number of common issues and Ms. Luby can talk to that for today’s, but one of the major initiatives that’s still being progressed is the plain language writing or rewriting of a number of Awards that’ve got high, high world reliance. So those Awards that have got a lot of employees covered by them or relying on them to set out their terms and conditions.

[Roberts] So…

Ms. Luby, do you have anything else to add to that?

Certainly. Thanks, Mr. Furlong. Thanks Senator. So the Four Yearly Review has, as you know been going on for a number of years. In terms of the Award specific reviews, there’s only seven Awards that are outstanding of the 122 that we started with. There are five of those Awards that are undergoing what we’re referring to as a plain language review, which goes to the point you were just making, and Mr. Furlong was making, about trying to make the terminology less complex. The others are the Nurse’s Award which is probably, it’s very close to completion. We’re hoping it will be completed by the end of July. A final draught has been published of that Award. And it’s just out for comment to ensure that there are no technical or drafting issues that have been incorporated in it. And the final other Award is the Black Coal Mining Award, where there’s one issue in relation to the interaction between shift work and weekend work penalties and the casual loading for staff employees. There was a conference about that yesterday but I understand the parties couldn’t come to an agreed position, so there’s a further conference scheduled in a couple of weeks.

[Roberts] Okay

So they’re the Award specific issues and then there are a number of common issues across the Awards that have progressed. But again, there’s only a small number of those that are left of the vast number of reviews that were undertaken over the last six years.

[Roberts] So while I see it as tinkering, it is a good step for having modernisation and simplification of the language in particular. So everyone knows where they stand.

Certainly. Senator. We agree.

[Roberts] Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

[Chair] Thank you, Senator Ro…

/by

The detailed breakdown of the Industrial Relations Bill

https://youtu.be/lU4SFG_Uyl4

I was unable to give this speech in the Senate last night but it’s important you get these details. While the government has backed down on changing the BOOT test after One Nation pressure, there is still much to fix in the casual employment mess. There is a lot of chest beating about this bill but no real detail, only One Nation will give you this amount of detail and transparency about our analysis.

Transcript

In serving the people of Queensland & Australia I want to discuss our shared need for: 

  • Improving industrial relations to protect honest workers and employers, especially casual workers.
  • Our concerns for business, particularly small business.
  • The bigger picture and a vision for a secure future for Australia. Today the government took the first step in recognising One Nation’s legitimate concerns for employers and employees – it booted out the BOOT! 

We listened: We are listening to workers – casual and permanent – across Queensland and Australia. Listening to all stakeholders in employment including welfare organisations. Listening to UB’s and union bodies. Listening to small and medium sized businesses. Listening to employer and industry groups. Listening to the government.Listening reveals that across our country, people are hurting, feeling vulnerable. Afraid for their jobs, worried they won’t be able to pay the mortgage, afraid of the future. Everyday Australians are hurting from government COVID restrictions and lock-downs keeping people away from jobs, businesses and loved ones. 

The Problems with this Bill: There are many problems with this Bill that need to be resolved to make it safer for both employees and employers. There are many ‘hairs’ on this Bill that need to be trimmed to make it fit-for-purpose. Our concern is for the unintended consequences of this government’s so-called reforms that are really just tinkerings. We’re investing the time and effort to work with all parties to improve outcomes for employees and employers. 

The first problem is with the definition of “casual”, The proposed casual definition at Section 15A is lengthy and complex, it suggests that the employer’s intention expressed at the time of commencement of employment is the only important factor, determining employment status. It’s not.  Hunter Valley casual coal miners we’ve championed were clearly permanent and not casual as the dishonest labour hire company, Chandler MacLeod designated. 

This must be clarified in the Bill or Explanatory Memorandum. The definition also refers to “no firm advance commitment” yet many casuals have a firm advance commitment. Because it suits both them and the business as in single parents working during school hours and in takeaway shop. The definition of casuals in S.15(A)(2) is a loose compromise because the term ”as required” is confusing and must be removed. Last week, Mr Bukarica, Legal Director for the CFMEU Mining Division and his team agreed that their union had ignored casuals for many years. The same can be said of this government. The CFMEU in the Hunter Valley and the government have contributed to the exploitation and confusion in the permanent casual rort. 

The second concern we have is with the proposed ‘right to conversion’ Many casuals have a regular pattern of hours, yet Sections 66A and B suggests that this means casuals are actually permanent. This section as it stands throws many burdens on small business and puts the casual loading at risk for workers who enjoy the benefit of a casual loading. 

The proscriptive nature of required record keeping and timeframes for offers of conversion, as in the proposed Section 66B, represent a burden for small business who cannot afford the time off the tools.The answer is to take this unnecessary burden away from small business and likewise to review the silly ‘windows of opportunity’ workers have to apply for conversion.

Even more record keeping. Yet sadly this change will do nothing to change how companies like BHP exploit and abuse casuals through labour hire arrangements. BHP and big business can randomise rosters and extend casual arrangements to suit themselves. Some already are and that disrupts workers needlessly. 

The third concern is the new Section 545A for offsetting claims This introduces a statutory rule for offsetting claims for unpaid entitlements from permanent casuals.  Calling this double dipping in many instances is a lie. Let’s be clear I do not support double dipping on entitlements. Yet employees have a right to entitlements under circumstances where they have been treated differently to a true casual. 

We will fight for retaining and protecting these workers’ entitlements just as we have done for 18 months in the Hunter Valley. The Full Court in the Rossato case clearly stated that the casual loading paid to a casual worker did not offset their entitlement to paid leave as guaranteed to all permanent workers under the Fair Work Act.

The government seems to think it has to change this because the decision could impact big business profits. Section 545A (1) (b) takes this even further and states that it protects employers where they pay a flat hourly rate even when it’s not clear whether a loading is being paid. What’s going on here? How is this fair or making things simple? 

In the Hunter Valley, casual mine workers were put on permanent rosters and in permanent roles beside the permanent workforce. It could not be more clear, yet the IR laws created ambiguity and injured workers are still waiting for their just entitlements nearly six years later. As it stands, this provision could deny workers their lawful entitlements where they were not given a casual loading or when the EA resulted from a flawed process. 

I commend the CFMEU Mining Division’s Legal Director Mr Bukarica for the courage and integrity he showed when in answer to my questions he acknowledged the Hunter Valley CFMEU’s role in colluding with employers to deprive casuals of basic employment entitlements and rights. 

We will work with the government to create a workable solution to ensure workers are treated fairly. This is crucial and not negotiable. Small Business: Small business needs clarity and simplicity. It deserves a fair go and cannot afford the days or weeks away from work to defend a case when the big end of town can dig into deep pockets to pay lawyers and consultants. 

While the overwhelming majority of claims against small business settle before arbitration, small business owners have suggested this is because they have learned to pay ‘go away’ money. Thousands of dollars. We have received representations suggesting that the increases in fines (Schedule 5, Parts 1, 4, and 5) and new criminal penalties (Schedule 5, Part 7) be suspended for 2 years for small businesses to soften the blow for an already damaged part of Australia’s economy. 

We believe this is worthy of support. Small business deserves and needs a tailor-made solution for them. Small business spans multiple awards and cannot afford enterprise agreements. They cannot submit to the inflexible rules that the IR Club creates for its benefit and for lawyers’ financial benefit. 

The IR Omnibus Bill so far: The Prime Minister describes the IR system as, quote: “not fit-for-purpose, especially given the scale of the jobs challenge that we now face as a nation.” Who can forget the Dyson Heydon’s (Royal Commission) diabolical findings on union bosses? The whole nation saw the need for changes to protect workers from lawbreaking union bosses. 

One Nation supported govt legislation to implement the Royal Commission’s findings. We supported the ABCC, ROC and the first Ensuring Integrity bill. Yet we could not support the govt’s ill-considered second Ensuring Integrity bill. Nor can we support this Bill as it stands.

I’ve spoken often about Hunter Valley coal miners being exploited, abused and discarded as a result of the collusion between BHP, Chandler Macleod, the labour-hire firm and the Hunter Valley CFMMEU. And while the government knew about the “casuals” problem for years it did nothing until Rosatto threatened big business profits.

One Nation is standing up to protect workers’ and employers’ rights. One Nation knows that only employers, entrepreneurs, small businesses and workers create jobs. Government COVID restrictions have done enormous damage. Yet the govt-induced recession is not an excuse to cut pay or job security.

Instead, for our country’s sake, let’s make a genuine attempt at IR Reform together. 

We’re ready to work with the government and stakeholders to improve outcomes for employers and for employees. For businesses, especially small businesses and for honest workers.

/by

Bill “trashes” casual regime for small business: One Nation

This article is re-published with the permission of Workplace Express.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation says the Morrison Government’s Omnibus IR Bill is “sadly lacking” on a range of key measures, including proposed changes to casual employment and the Better Off Overall Test. 

The party’s IR spokesperson, Senator Malcolm Roberts, has called for substantial amendments to the Bill, arguing it will “hurt many businesses and affect the working conditions and take-home pay of many everyday Australians”. 

The senator says in a submission to a Senate inquiry into the Fair Work Act Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) that the changes are aimed mostly at big business and the “IR Club” rather than small to medium employers. 

“We do not see genuine reform,” he says. 

“This is more words in legislation, more rules and more vagueness in complex definitions. 

“The outcome of this Omnibus IR Bill is that it will not create certainty for people who just want to get back to work. 

“It will add to the complexity of business life. 

“Australia’s industrial relations system no longer serves employers and employees; it serves the people who benefit from its complexity. 

“The IR Club, the class action lawyers, union bosses and the big employer organisations all earn money which could be better spent by employers and employees on securing jobs and income.” 

With Labor and the Greens opposed to the Bill, its fate looks set to turn on the votes of five crossbench senators – Jacqui Lambie Network’s Jacqui Lambie, PHON’s Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, Centre Alliance’s Stirling Griff and South Australian Independent Rex Patrick. 

Senator Roberts, a former coal mine manager and engineer, has long complained that big employers have abused casual work arrangements in the coal industry through the use of long-term labour hire arrangements (see Related Article). 

The Bill’s proposed definition of casual employment determines an employee’s status based only on the original offer made to the employee, without taking into account “any subsequent conduct of the parties”. 

Senator Roberts argues in the submission that IR Minister Christian Porter is “trashing the ‘long term flexible but predictable’ casual employment arrangements that suited many small business employers and employees”. 

He is doing so, he says, because of abuse by “big business”, citing as an example labour hire arrangements in the coal mining industry. 

Senator Roberts says the legislation will mean that a person is a casual employee if the employer makes an offer of employment on the basis of no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work. 

“It is arguable that a consequence of these provisions as they are envisaged is that, if an employer does not make an offer in the exact terms (be it in writing or orally), the employee will, at law, be considered a permanent employee as they will not fall within the definition of casual employee. 

“Many employers, especially small business employers, are unlikely to offer casual employment to a person in such clearly defined terms. 

“This is particularly the case when an offer of employment is made orally which is more common than formalised employment arrangements.” 

The senator says that an employer might consider they have offered casual employment but, if they have failed to meet the prescriptive terms, that employment will be permanent by default. 

“This is likely to lead to significant confusion among employers and employees about their employment relationship and the entitlements that derive from the characterisation of the relationship,” says Roberts. 

“Conversely, an employee who falls within the definition of casual employee at the commencement of employment but whose nature of employment subsequently changes, is nonetheless deemed to continue to be a casual employee. 

“While casual work is not for everyone, rewriting it as the Government has done may have many unintended consequences for everyday Australians, such as pay cuts and rosters that change from week to week to protect the employer from creating a ‘firm advanced commitment’.” 

BOOT change also problematic

Senator Roberts also argues against the Bill seeking to allow a two-year window for the FWC to approve enterprise agreements that do not meet the BOOT where the employer has been affected by the pandemic. 

He says the Fair Work Act already allows the Commission to approve an agreement that does not pass the BOOT if it is satisfied that, because of exceptional circumstances, the approval of the agreement would not be contrary to the public interest. 

The proposed change is an “unnecessary amendment and, furthermore, significantly dilutes the fundamental protection of the BOOT.” 

“I propose that the government keeps the BOOT as it is and ensures that the FW Commission has better governance to review and to improve agreements – due diligence not a rubber stamp.” 

Senator Roberts also calls for the Morrison Government to:

  • create a dedicated small business award or enterprise agreement;
  • simplify the small business code and reduce the maximum compensation payable by small businesses in dismissal cases from 6 months to 3 months;
  • review and rewrite the entire Fair Work Act and IR structure, after the two-year deadline for the flexible arrangements expires in about 2023;
  • focus the efforts of FWO inspectors primarily on solutions rather than penalties; and
  • introducing longer-term greenfields agreements for “tier 2” Australian construction companies.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation submission to the Senate inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, February 2020

/by