Adviser Aug_2010

1

IN THIS ISSUE

Work Health and Safety—model Act update

AdviserEmployers

August 2010 Published by AFEI - Level 2, 97-99 Bathurst Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000

A new national work health and safety regime is being put in place for Australian workplaces. A Model Work

Health and Safety Act (the model Act) has been endorsed by the Workplace Relations Ministers Council and existing state occupational health and safety laws in each state and territory will be replaced by the end of 2011. Each state is currently in the process of drafting a Bill to reflect the model Act.

New national regulations

Safe Work Australia is also writing the national regulations that will accompany the model Act. They will replace the regulations currently in place for each state and territory. A four month public comment period starts in October on the draft regulations and we will be seeking your views on them during that time.

What’s stayed the same?

Overall, the key features of the work heath and safety law that employers are familiar with have been kept—the duty to ensure safety, the need to continually check for hazards and minimise risks and the requirement to consult with employees.

� Work Health and Safety—model Act update

� OH&S Obligations of Designers, Manufacturers and Suppliers

� Unpaid parental leave update

� Bleak House—harder to appeal unfair dismissal under fair work

� Valid reason for OHS dismissal—but maximum payout

� Retail modern award—appeal against minimum hours decision

The Adviser www.afei.org.au

Published by AFEI - Level 2, 97-99 Bathurst Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000

2

Features 1 Work Health and Safety—model Act

update

6 OH&S Obligations of Designers, Manufacturers and Suppliers

7 Unpaid parental leave update

Cases & the law9 Bleak House—harder to appeal

unfair dismissal under fair work

11 Valid reason for OHS dismissal—but maximum payout

11 Retail modern award—appeal against minimum hours decision

Training & events 12 September & October training dates

13 Understanding unfair dismissal

14 See us at the safety show!

15 Your guide to the Fair Work Act—what’s in it?

August 2010

What’s changed?

Until we see the detail of each state’s Bills adopting the model provisions we won’t know the full extent of the changes. However, it’s already clear that there will be a significant broadening of the duty of care beyond the traditional employee/employer relationship, an increase in the obligations for all duty holders and an increase in the duty to consult.

For example, the duty to provide a safe workplace will extend to any person who might be put at risk from any aspect of the business or undertaking. This means suppliers, manufacturers and designers will have to consider the effect of

continued from page 1

Will the state laws be identical to the model Act?

We can’t be certain what the New South Wales Bill might look like until it’s introduced to the Parliament— see page 5 of this Adviser. However, we want to give members the best opportunity to prepare for the changes, some of which are clear even in advance of the fine detail provided by a parliamentary Bill.

Who will the regulator be?

There is no change in this area. The regulator will continue to be the existing regulator in each state and territory.

What are our concerns?

Creating similar work health and safety law throughout Australia has involved the political interests of the federal government, the states and the unions. Consequently, it was a process intended to import the highest standards into the model law.

Our concerns are that the regulation of work health and safety will become tougher for employers, with an increase in financial penalties. However, the full impact of the changes will only be clear when employers consider the law in the day-to-day running of their organisation. This is demonstrated in the table below, where we compare key parts of the existing law in each state and territory with the model Act.

their business or product on the safety of every person who might be put at risk.

There are new duties for ‘officers’ that require organisations to identify who the responsible officers are under the new law and to make sure they each comply with their new ‘due diligence’ obligations.

All duty holders are required to consult, cooperate and coordinate with each other. The model Act makes it clear that a duty holder can’t assume that another person is responsible for safety. The obligations are concurrent at all times and can’t be delegated.

There are also increased right of entry provisions for unions and higher penalties. These issues and others are listed in the comparison table at the end of this article.

CONTENTS

The Adviser www.afei.org.au 3


FEATURES

Table 1—comparison of current law with the model Act

Topic 1: Duty of care—primary duty of care

Current law Draft model law Comparison

Employers have the ‘primary duty of care’ to protect the health and safety of employees. Only Qld and the ACT extend the primary duty to people who ‘conduct a business or undertaking’. The NT is even broader, defining the employer as ‘a person who carries on a business’.

The reference to employer is replaced with ‘a person conducting a business or undertaking’ and reference to employee is replaced with ‘all persons who may be put at risk from the conduct of the business or undertaking’.

This will result in a key change in six of the nine jurisdictions—NSW, Vic, SA, WA, Tas and the Commonwealth. Qld, the ACT and the NT already take a similar approach.

What are the implications?

A broader range of people, not only employers or controllers of workplace premises or plant will have a primary duty of care under this definition. The link between the duty and the employment relationship is diluted so that not only employers, but also a ‘person conducting a business or undertaking’ is responsible. This means that multiple duty holders will have the same duty of care at the same time. The duty is not reduced because you think it’s agreed that ‘someone else’ is taking care of safety—you are obliged to protect anyone who may be put at risk because of your undertakings. A person who designs or supplies fittings or plant has to ensure the safety of not only their own employees but those affected by the fittings or plant wherever located- workers, customers or bystanders. A householder may also be a person conducting a business or undertaking.

Topic 2: Duties of Care—reasonably practicable


Most OHS Acts require the duty holder to do what is ‘reasonably practicable’ to provide a safe workplace. NSW and Qld don’t have this qualification for the primary duty holder, but it’s available as a defence. In NSW and Qld the duties are absolute and a duty holder is considered to be guilty until proven innocent.

Primary duties of care are all subject to the qualifier of reasonably practicable. This is defined to include consideration of the:

—likelihood and degree of harm

—what is known about the hazard/ risk and how to eliminate or minimise

—availability and suitability of ways to eliminate/minimise

—cost in proportion to the risk.

This will be a change for NSW and Qld.


The model Act modifies the absolute duty to ensure safety by adding the term ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ and puts the burden of proof on the prosecutor. However, it remains to be seen how much assistance this will provide NSW duty holders who will remain subject to prosecution by WorkCover NSW in the Industrial Relations Commission. The results of past prosecutions show that the commission readily finds reasonably practicable avenues that were available to the employer to avoid risk of harm.

4


The Adviser www.afei.org.au

FEATURES

4

Topic 3: Definition of worker


Most OHS Acts use the term ‘employee’ while some Acts extend ‘employee’ to include contractors. The broader term of ‘worker’ is used in the Qld, NT and ACT laws.

The model Act will adopt a broad definition of ‘worker’ that extends beyond the employment relationship to include ‘any person who works, in any capacity, in or as part of the business or undertaking’.

This will be a change for six of the nine jurisdictions—NSW, Vic, SA, WA, Tas and the Commonwealth.


In addition to the new wider definition of who has a duty of care for work health and safety there is a new definition of who must be cared for. The word worker replaces the word employee, which has a special legal meaning. At the same time the new duty holder must not only protect employees, but all people against any hazards and risks arising from the conduct of work.

Topic 4: Duty of care—officers


Currently, a breach of a duty of care by an organisation is usually attributed to officers without any positive duty placed on them. SA is the only jurisdiction to use a positive duty although this is restricted to ‘specified’ officers.

The model Act will place a positive duty on an officer to exercise ‘due diligence’.

This will be a key change for all jurisdictions.


This is a major change for employers and will require careful planning. The clear intent of the model Act is to make this a proactive, rather than reactive duty and it will require you to have good corporate governance measures in place.

The model Act takes its definition of officer from the federal Corporations Act. An officer is defined as a person who makes, or takes part in making, decisions that affect the whole or substantial part of the business. It also includes a person who has the capacity to significantly affect the financial standing of the business.

There is no distinction between directors and non-executive directors—the obligation applies equally to both. As with all other duties, it can’t be delegated.

Officers are to have a new and specific duty of care to exercise due diligence. Due diligence is defined in the model Act and involves:

� acquiring and keeping up-to date knowledge of work health and safety

� understanding the operations, hazards and risks of the business

� using resources to eliminate or minimise risk

� having processes for receiving and considering information and responding in a timely manner

� implementing compliance processes. You need to decide who might be considered an officer in your organisation and the implications for your operations. This could include reviewing: safety policies and procedures, corporate governance and lines of reporting. It could also include training.

5



FEATURES

Topic 5: Work health and safety offences—penalties


The maximum penalties in the existing OHS Acts differ:

NSW—$1 650 000 and five years in prison

Vic—$1 020 780 and five years in prison

Qld—$750 000 and two years in prison

WA—$625 000 and two years in prison

SA—$1 200 000 and five years in prison

Tas—$50 000 and no prison time

ACT—$1 000 000 and seven years in prison

Commonwealth—$495 000 and no prison.

The model Act will provide for significant penalties above and beyond the penalties that currently exist in any Australian jurisdiction, as well as imprisonment of up to five years for the most serious breaches.

The new maximum will be $3 million.

The level of penalties will be a significant change for all jurisdictions.

The imprisonment terms will be greater than that currently provided for in Tas, the Commonwealth, Qld and WA. They will stay the same for NSW, Vic and SA and reduced in the ACT.


The high penalties that are currently awarded have been crippling for many employers. Particularly when the judicial interpretation has been that employers must protect against the unintentional acts of employees and unforeseeable plant and equipment failure. It remains difficult for an employer to defend a work health and safety prosecution and it’s inevitable that these extreme fines will affect the ability of some organisations to continue trading.

Where can I get a copy?

You can download a copy of the model Act at the Safe Work Australia website www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au

What happens next?

Each state and territory must pass their own workplace health and safety laws and adopt them by December 2011. The timetable at the moment is that the new laws will start on 1 January 2012.

For more comparisons between the current law and the draft model law please go to www.afei.org.au.

Source: The information in this article is drawn from the regulation impact statement prepared for Safe Work Australia.

Latest News

We have been advised by WorkCover NSW that the NSW Bill to adopt the model WHS provisions will be introduced into the NSW Parliament within one month. There is to be no public consultation on the Bill. According to WorkCover, the public consultation on the Model Act was sufficient. This is despite the many jurisdictional notes in the Model Act, enabling each jurisdiction to make their own arrangements for many of its provisions.

www.afei.org.au

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au

www.afei.org.au



FEATURES

OH&S Obligations of Designers, Manufacturers and Suppliers A snapshot view of what lies ahead in the model Workplace Health and Safety Act

Although the focus of OHS regulation across the country has been the workplace and the employment relationship, other individuals and organisations also have safety obligations under current legislation. These include designers, manufacturers and suppliers. The model WHS legislation is set to widen and deepen their obligations and make it more likely that they will be in the regulators’ spotlight.

“Upstream” duty holders - including the designers, manufacturers, suppliers and installers of plant and substances, the designers and builders of structures later used as workplaces - are already obliged to ensure that these are safe.

The category of individuals and organisations who are considered to be “designers” is already wide and includes consulting engineers, architects, surveyors and fit-out contractors. Most jurisdictions currently require that those responsible for designing structures or buildings to be used as workplaces must ensure that the structure or building is safe and free from risks to health and safety.

In the case of suppliers of plant and equipment, the general requirement is that the plant or equipment must be safe and

without risks to health when properly used at the time the plant/equipment is supplied. This also includes the provision of adequate information about the supplied plant or equipment.

With the model WHS Act now in place, regulators have a framework in which to close the gaps in the regulation of upstream duty holders and harmonise enforcement policies. The nature of these duties is very open ended, and limited only to the extent that it is not “reasonably practicable” to ensure that the plant, substance or structure is without risks to health and safety at a workplace, when used for its intended purpose.

For example, a person who designs plant, substances or structures to be used at a workplace must ensure that these are without risk for any person involved in (and in the vicinity of) their use, handling, storage, construction, manufacture.

This means that the designer, an architect for example, has a duty to ensure safety during the construction or demolition phase of a building.

Further, designers, manufacturers and suppliers must undertake whatever testing, analysis or examination is needed to ensure safety (so far as reasonably practicable). They must provide adequate information to each person they provide with the plant, substance or structure about its purpose, the results of any

analysis, testing or examination an any conditions necessary to ensure it is without risks to health and safety.

There are also expanded consultation requirements in the model legislation which compel all duty holders to consult about OHS risk. Each person with a duty must, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult, co-operate and co-ordinate activities with all other persons who have a duty in relation to the same matter. Consequently there are duties for designers, manufacturers, suppliers, importers and persons in control of a business or undertaking to consult with each other about the safe use of their plant, substance or structure.

We have seen some prosecutions in the past involving manufacturers and suppliers which raised questions about their actual ability to control the use of their products in any meaningful way once in the hands of third parties. The provisions in the model act will make it easier for regulators to prosecute but compliance becomes harder where duty holders have little, if any, capacity to control how their design/product/system/structure is used. It is by no means clear that improved safety will result from having multiple, overlapping duty holders, all with differing degrees of control, and in many instances limited practical ability to actually influence safety outcomes.

7


The Adviser www.afei.org.au 7 The Adviser www.afei.org.au 7

August 2010

FEATURES

Unpaid parental leave updateUnpaid parental leave is guaranteed leave for 12 months for Australian employees on the birth or adoption of a child—provided they meet basic eligibility criteria. It’s defined by the special characteristics of a promise that they can return to work in their old role at the end of the 12 months, or one that’s similar, and that their employer will speak to them while they are on leave about any changes that might affect their role. From the start of next year, many employees will also be eligible for 18 weeks paid parental leave, an entirely new and separate entitlement for Australian employees.

Unpaid parental leave update

1. Eligibility for parental leave—permanent employees

Unpaid parental leave must be granted to eligible parents following the birth or adoption of a child. The rules for eligibility under the Fair Work Act haven’t changed from the previous law so that full time and part time employees who work for you for 12 continuous months are entitled to the unpaid leave.

Eligibility continues to be contingent on the employee having responsibility for the care of the child so this means technically parental leave is available to either parent of a child. It’s clear that an eligible pregnant mother will receive the leave, but it’s also possible that an eligible spouse or de facto will receive the leave if

they’re responsible for the care of the child.

2. Eligibility for parental leave—casual employees

Casual employees aren’t entitled to parental leave unless they are long term and have a reasonable expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis. This definition is meant to capture employees who might be described as casuals, but who have a work history that shows they are more established than their casual status suggests. It’s not possible to offer a definitive guide here to whether a casual employee might qualify for unpaid leave, but if you have concerns about eligibility, please contact the AFEI Hotline on: 02 9264 2000.

3. No exemptions for small employers

If an employee is eligible then you must grant them 12 months unpaid leave. There are no exemptions

from this legal obligation and you must grant the leave whether you are a small or large business or organisation.

4. Return to work guarantee and duty to consult

When the period of unpaid leave ends you must allow the employee to return to the position they had before going on leave. This is called a return to work guarantee. If the position no longer exists the employee is still entitled to return to work in a position that’s available, provided they are qualified and suited to the role, that’s the nearest in status and pay to their old position.

In addition to guaranteeing work at the end of the leave, you must also speak to an employee on unpaid parental leave if you make a decision that will have a ‘significant effect’ on the status, pay or location of their pre–parental leave position.

8



FEATURES

5. Double trouble—the new 24 month entitlement

One of the most significant changes made by the national employment standards of the Fair Work Act was to allow employees to extend their period of unpaid parental leave by 12 months. An employee must make the request in writing and an employer can only refuse on reasonable business grounds.

Reasonable business grounds is a defence available to employers in a number of areas of workplace law, but it isn’t defined in the Fair Work Act. Using past case

law on leave for employees with carer’s and family responsibilities as a guide, this might involve considering the request in light of:

� the type of role

� the type of industry

� the impact on your business

� the cost to your business.

However, we encourage you call the AFEI Hotline or seek advice from AFEI Legal before refusing a request for a 12 month extension.

There are special rules for employee couples to ensure that they don’t take more than 24

months of unpaid parental leave per child. This means that if you do grant an extension to an employee, their entitlement is reduced by the amount of parental leave that their partner has taken. Similarly, once the extension is granted, the time that the partner is entitled to take is reduced by that amount. This means if an employee takes 24 months unpaid parental leave it extinguishes the partner’s entitlement.

6. When does leave start?

The leave can start up to six weeks before the due date of the baby, but it must start on the day the child is born.

Unpaid parental leave—long term planning

In summary, most employees who must care for a child are eligible to receive:

unpaid parental leave one year unpaid parental leave extension + one year right to request flexible work* + four years (estimated) Together these standards create some troubling long term workforce planning scenarios for employers. For example, in addition to up to six years with an employee either on leave or working flexible hours, employers might need to plan for an even lengthier absence with an employee who has a second child soon after their first. In the case of a second child born during the extension period, it’s possible an employer could have an employee on unpaid parental leave for four years, with an additional four years of flexible work arrangements. At the end of this there is no guarantee that the employee will stay with that employer, or in the workforce at all.


The Adviser www.afei.org.au The Adviser www.afei.org.au

August 2010

9

breach of standard safety procedures. The employee overrode automated safety systems to enter a large high-rise warehouse to realign a jammed pallet. The only reason he could enter the warehouse was because he put cardboard over a sensor that would have shut down dangerous machinery. Other members of his team were on a break at the time and blocking the sensor allowed him to enter the building alone. His actions put him at risk of serious injury or death.

FWA ordered the employer to reinstate the employee. There had been a valid reason for the termination but it was harsh taking into account his unblemished record, existing practice in the high-rise warehouse and the period of time since training on the safety procedures for that department. FWA also cited the obligation put on the employee to indicate if additional training was needed and his apparent ignorance of the correct way to fix the fault. The employer appealed.

What did the employer argue?

The employer argued the appeal raised important issues about the dismissal of an employee for

only be granted if the error was significant.

Before the Fair Work Act started, an appeal against an unfair dismissal application was the same as an appeal against other decisions. A decision could be reconsidered if there was enough doubt about it or if a substantial injustice would result if the leave to appeal was refused.

What happened?

The employer dismissed an employee who made a serious

A recent decision suggests Fair Work Australia (FWA) is turning into a bleak house—the name of Dickens’s novel—for Australian employers. Two important issues emerge from the decision about appeals against unfair dismissal applications:

1. an appeal against a decision about unfair dismissal won’t be granted unless it’s in the public interest to do

2. where permission is granted and the appeal is based on an error of fact, the appeal will

CASES & THE LAW

Bleak House—harder to appeal unfair dismissal under fair work In English literature Charles Dickens compared the sometimes slow and oppressive working of the law to the natural events of fog and mud. The fog represented a murkiness and mystery that made it hard for parties to understand the law and the mud represented its slow progress.

10



breach of an employer’s safety policy. The employer said that given the general importance of safety in the workplace and the need to make sure employees follow safety polices, it’s in the public interest that decisions also take into account:

� the training given to the employee before the safety breach

� the seriousness of the breach

� the importance of safety policies and the undesirability of deliberate attempts by employees to circumvent them

� the importance of an employee’s attitude to the breach

� the potential consequences of the safety breach

� whether the reinstatement of the employee would pose a safety risk that was unacceptable at the employer’s site.

What was decided?

FWA dismissed the employer’s application to appeal. The full bench quoted the words of a 1986 High Court decision that ‘a difference of opinion between the judges on appeal and the judge at first instance’ can’t be grounds for granting an appeal. This was relevant because the full bench said it was unlikely they

would have found the employee was unfairly dismissed given the seriousness of his conduct. But there was no evidence that the original decision contained an error.

Further, the full bench said it wasn’t in the public interest to allow the appeal, although it wouldn’t define what the expression meant. However, it did give examples of when public interest might be attracted. These included when:

� a matter raises issues of importance and general application

� there is a diversity of decisions at first instance so that guidance at the appeal level is required,

� a decision at first instance creates an injustice

� the result is counter intuitive

� the legal principles applied appear ‘disharmonious’ compared with other recent decisions that deal with similar matters.

What does this mean for employers?

Understanding unfair dismissal laws under the Fair Work Act is an ongoing process for Australian employers. This technical aspect of the appeal process in this case only highlights one of the changes

made to unfair dismissal under the fair work laws.

This decision makes it much more difficult for an employer to appeal against a decision that an employee was unfairly dismissed. In this case the employer was ordered to reinstate the employee, but it will also apply to decisions ordering compensation following a finding of unfair dismissal. The new laws affecting appeals also apply to employees, meaning that an employee who has an application for unfair dismissal thrown out, should also face a similar hurdle. But we are yet to see a decision on that issue.

The practical implications are that it’s more important than ever to dismiss an employee fairly because any attempts to remedy the situation from at appeal stage have just gotten harder.

AFEI is running a new training course ‘Understanding unfair dismissal’ that comprehensively addresses the unfair dismissal laws under fair work. If you need immediate help making an appeal, or advice and representation before Fair Work Australia, please contact AFEI Legal on: 02 8088 4999.

GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Makin [2010] FWAFB 5343

CASES & THE LAW

http://www.fwa.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2010fwafb5343.htm

11


The Adviser www.afei.org.au 11The Adviser www.afei.org.au 11

Following the start of the modern award it became clear that young employees, particularly in regional areas, were losing their jobs. It emerged that junior employees in after school roles who were only available for one and a half hours of work—4.00 pm to 5.30 pm—but had to be paid for at least three hours of work.

In the decision that’s being appealed, FWA acknowledged that the retail modern award had affected the employment of school students. However, they refused to reduce the hours in the modern awards because the retailers needed to establish that the modern awards objective wouldn’t be achieved unless the variation

was made. It wasn’t enough to establish that the variation was desirable.

The appeal hearing before the full bench of Fair Work Australia started on 18 August, but a decision hasn’t been made yet. We’ll update members on the outcome once a decision has been handed down.

CASES & THE LAW

Retail modern award—appeal against minimum hours decision The retail industry has appealed against a decision by Fair Work Australia not to reduce the minimum engagement period for employees that’s set out in the retail modern award*. Retailers are seeking a minimum period of two hours, down from the three hours set by the modern award.

It was agreed that the company took its safety record seriously and had explained its policies and serious attitude to safety through regular memos, safety meetings, and visits of senior staff on particular issues. However Fair Work Australia (FWA) was not persuaded by the employers’ view that the employees had a poor attitude towards safety and regarded attendance at paid after work safety meetings as perfunctory and a “bit of a joke”.

FWA referred to safety laws, noting that underlying this legislation is the understanding that workers can unintentionally make mistakes and injure themselves and sometimes injure others. The court did not refer to the employer’s obligation

to ensure safety, notwithstanding unintentional mistakes by workers, or their failure to follow safety procedures.

The court concluded that the applicants’ conduct was inadvertent, not wilful, and that it did not demonstrate a serious disregard for workplace safety:

“was not one of a number of errors, part of a series of careless acts, or part of a course of conduct which demonstrated a reckless indifference to safety. Their conduct was a single act of carelessness by each applicant”.

One single act of carelessness by

employees can place employers in breach of their OHS obligations. The difficulties faced in maintaining a vigilant outlook for safety on the part of employees is demonstrated by the tests outlined above by the court in demonstrating a “serious disregard for safety”; reckless indifference, wilfulness, a series of careless acts.

FWA found the employees were not given the opportunity to respond to the employer’s view about their attitude towards safety, and that the dismissal, while for a valid reason, was harsh. Maximum compensation was awarded instead of reinstatement for the employee who had found a job elsewhere, and an agreement reached about reinstating the other employee.

Valid reason for OHS dismissal—but maximum payout Two employees whose job was to fit tyres to trailers were dismissed after using the wrong tyre which exploded in the safety cage during the fitting process.


The Adviser www.afei.org.au The Adviser www.afei.org.au 12

August 2010

TRAINING AND EVENTS

AFEI runs a comprehensive range of nationally recognised qualifications and short courses.

Next month ...

SEP COURSE TITLE

1Your Legal Obligations under the Fair Work Act (1 day)

2 Design Learning (2 days)

2Introduction to OHS and Workers Compensation (1/2 day)

2Preventing Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace (1/2 day)

6 Customer Service Skills (1 day)

7OHS Consultation for Workplace Committee Members and OHS Representatives (4 days)

8 Understanding Unfair Dismissal (Full) (1/2 day)

9 Managing Staff in the Community Sector (1 day)

9 Manual Handling Employee Awareness (1/2 day)

10Performance Management and Improving Staff Performance in the Community Sector (1 day)

13 Implement Industrial Relations Procedures (2 days)

15 Develop Teams and Individuals (1 day)

16 Manage Projects (2 days)


20 Manage Workforce Planning (2 days)

22 Essential Selling Skills (2 days)


23Effective Supervision and Team Leadership I (2 days)

28 Manage Separation and Termination (2 days)

29 Principles of Ergonomics and Safe Design (2 days)

OCT COURSE TITLE

1Occupational Health and Safety Fundamentals (4 days)

6 OHS Risk Management (2 days)

7Assertive Behaviour and Conflict Resolution (2 days)

11 Establish Effective Workplace Relationships (1 day)

11OHS Consultation for Workplace Committee Members and OHS Representatives (4 days)

12Manage Performance Management Systems (2 days)

14 Recruit, Select and Induct Staff (2 days)

18 Coaching and Mentoring (1 day)

18Effective Supervision and Team Leadership II (2 days)

19 Workplace Learning (2 days)

20 Professional Presentation Skills (1 day)

21 Negotiation Skills (1 day)

21OHS Risk Management Awareness for Supervisors (1 day)

25Effective Supervision and Team Leadership I (2 days)


26 Incident Investigation (2 days)

28Conduct an OHS Audit and Evaluate OHS Performance (2 days)

28Telephone Techniques and Positive First Time Impressions (1 day)



TRAINING & EVENTS

Understanding unfair dismissal

Learn about unfair dismissal underfair work in our new course. Findout about:

� adverse action

� the new definition of small and large business

� minimum employment periods

� options in redundancy.

Understanding unfairdismissal—it’s an art form

Contact training today on: 02 9264 2000 to enrol orvisit afei.org.au/training for moreinformation.

NEW DATES 22 & 26 NOV 2010

14


The Adviser www.afei.org.au 14 The Adviser www.afei.org.au

August 2010

Three day course

Need to learn how to develop industrial relations strategies and policies? Don’t have time to enrol in a HR qualification, then come to our three day overview course on managing industrial relations. This course will take you through all the basics as well as the latest developments in modern awards to kick start you along and get you using policies and procedures that reflect the national employment standards of the Fair Work Act. This three day course is $960 for non-members and $810 for members.

See us at the safety show! We have a stall at the safety show that is on in late October. The Safety Show is the premier workplace health and safety event that features the latest products and services relating to safety at work.

We will be there again this year to meet with members and talk about work health and safety law and in particular the Model Act that the Federal Government is developing.

We’ll have the latest information and advice about the Model Act to help you prepare for the changes to the law that are set to start in 2012.

Event The Safety Show

Venue Sydney Showground, Sydney Olympic Park

Dates Tues 26 Oct 10 am—5 pm Wed 27 Oct 9 am—5 pm Thu 28 Oct 9 am—4 pm

Stall no. Q16

14

TRAINING & EVENTS

15


The Adviser www.afei.org.au 15 The Adviser www.afei.org.au

August 2010

Three day course

Need to learn how to develop industrial relations strategies and policies? Don’t have time to enrol in a HR qualification, then come to our three day overview course on managing industrial relations. This course will take you through all the basics as well as the latest developments in modern awards to kick start you along and get you using policies and procedures that reflect the national employment standards of the Fair Work Act. This three day course is $960 for non-members and $810 for members.

Your guide to the Fair Work Act—what’s in it?We have written Your Guide to the Fair Work Act to introduce AFEI members to the changes made by the Fair Work Act and modern awards that started in 2009 and 2010.

When a new law is introduced it can be hard to know here to begin. We have written this guide to help you get used to the new language and definitions used by the Fair Work Act. It will also help you understand what stayed the same as the old law, what’s new and which areas of the Act most concern us for employers.

Below is a sample of the contents of the guide.

ContentsForeword 4

Disclaimer and copyright notice 5

Introduction 6

The national employment standards 10

Modern awards 23

Enterprise agreements 26

Workplace determinations 29

Minimum wages 31

Equal remuneration 32

Transfer of business 33

General protections 37

Unfair dismissal 43

Industrial action 48

Entry rights under the Fair Work Act 53

AFEI Legal 56

The AFEI website 57

To purchase your copy please download an order form from the AFEI website at: http://afei.org.au/pdf/Order_Form.pdf or call member services on: 02 9264 2000. Non-member price: $60.00 (plus p&h) Member price: $40.00 (plus p&h)

15

TRAINING & EVENTS

http://afei.org.au/pdf/Order_Form.pdf



16

© Australian Federation of Employers & Industries (AFEI) 2010

ABN 68 337 541 246

This work is copyright. No part of the work may be used or reproduced by any process, apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), without prior written permission from AFEI.

Please address enquiries to Copyright at [email protected]

The Adviser is intended as a guide to the law and shouldn’t be used as a substitute for legal advice. This information applies to employers who have premises in Australia, or are affected by industrial and workplace relations law as it applies in Australia. The

publisher and the authors, consultants and editors expressly disclaim all and any liability and responsibility to any person, whether a purchaser or reader of this publication or not, in respect of anything, and of the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done

by any such person in reliance, whether wholly or partially on the contents of this publication. The publisher does not warrant the accuracy or otherwise of any statements made by any person or organisation in this publication.

For members that want advice about any of the subjects discussed in this publication please call Member Services at AFEI on: 02 9264 2000 and ask to speak to one of our advisers or consultants. You can also speak to a lawyer from AFEI Legal by calling: 02 8088 4999.

For further information about the Adviser or AFEI please visit: www.afei.org.auYou can also write to:

AFEI AdviserPO Box A233

SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235

Street Level 2, 97-99 Bathurst Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000Postal PO Box A233, SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235

Phone 02 9264 2000Fax 02 9264 5699

Email [email protected]

www.afei.org.au

Documents

Adviser Aug_2010