Resources: Blogs

Take it from the top

Blogs
|

Charities under scrutiny in wake of class actions and FWO inquiry

It is quite common to be walking on a busy street or in a shopping centre and be approached by someone asking for a donation for a specific charity. Have you ever wondered about how much these “fundraisers” are being paid? Well, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has.

It is quite common to be walking on a busy street or in a shopping centre and be approached by someone asking for a donation for a specific charity. Have you ever wondered about how much these “fundraisers” are being paid? Well, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has.

Since October 2016, the FWO has conducted investigations as part of its Inquiry into the exploitation of charity collectors (fundraisers). The FWO’s primary concern is that charities are unaware that workplace laws are being contravened and workers are being exploited by some sales and marketing agencies (SMAs) who supply labour for a charity’s outsourced fundraising activities.

The FWO investigation is not the only avenue through which charities and their labour hire practices have come under scrutiny. This month, newspapers have reported on Canberra fundraisers who are mounting a class action against a SMA. The fundraisers have alleged that they were paid as little as $600/week for 80 hours of work. They further allege that:

  • They failed to receive minimum employment entitlements;
  • Were paid on a results/commission only basis; and
  • The SMA engaged unpaid interns and high school work experience students.

The SMA subject to the class action responded to these allegations and stated that these fundraisers were in fact subcontractors of another SMA. These arguments highlight another focus of the FWO’s inquiry, sham contracting.

The FWO has suggested that the most common non-compliance issue for charity SMAs is sham contracting. This is where fundraisers are being classified and treated as independent contractors when their correct classification is as an employee. In some cases, the misclassification is done deliberately or recklessly in order to avoid obligations under employment law.

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) contains provisions on “accessorial liability.” These provisions make anyone involved in a breach (i.e. underpayment, sham contracting, etc) personally liable as an “accessory” to the breach/es. This is to ensure that all those who are involved in or benefit from the exploitation of vulnerable workers (such as students and visa holders) are held accountable.

In order to minimise exposure to the accessorial liability provisions of the FW Act, it is important for those at the top of the supply chain to ensure that all parties in the supply chain have complied with workplace laws. To assist with minimising exposure to accessorial liability, charities or any other entity at the top of the supply chain should:

  • Check existing agreements to determine whether there is a condition in the agreement that requires the labour hire company or agency to comply with all applicable laws and any obligations contained in an award or enterprise agreement;
  • Enquire with the labour hire company or agency about the rates of pay where there is a suspicion that the rate provided appears to be lower than expected; and
  • Conduct spot check or audits with respect to subcontractor rates of pay to ensure correct pay and conditions are provided throughout the supply chain.

In light of the FWO’s continued investigation into charities and the class action taking place in Canberra, it is a timely reminder for charities (and other corporations) who have supply chain arrangements, that legal advice should be sought to minimise risks of accessorial liability and potential penalties for breaches in the supply chain.

 

Similar articles

HR Manager fined $7,600 for accessorial liability in adverse action against employee

Taking it personally

Last year, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found a HR Manager to be accessorily liable for his involvement in an employer’s unlawful adverse action against an employee after she proposed to exercise a workplace right, being her ability to initiate proceedings under a workplace law.

Read more...

Court finds HR manager accessorily liable for adverse action claim

Supreme failure

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) contains provisions which make it possible for individuals to be found accessorily liable for their involvement in a contravention of a workplace law. In particular, section 550 of the FW Act provides that a person “involved in” a contravention will be taken to have contravened that provision themselves.

Read more...

Court confirms small claim proceedings extends to matters involving accessorial liability

The deregistered accessory

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) is able to determine certain underpayment disputes as “small claims proceedings”.

Read more...

Court temporarily reinstates employee pending adverse action claim

BRB

The probation period is commonly used by employers to assess the suitability of an employee for ongoing employment. One of the reasons that the probation period is of benefit to employers is because, when aligned with the minimum employment period set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), it allows an employer to end the employment relationship before an employee becomes entitled to protection from unfair dismissal.

Read more...

How pre-employment checks minimise the risk of post-recruitment discoveries

Skeletons in the closet

You have hired an employee who appears to be perfect on paper, only to later discover that they have misrepresented or deliberately withheld information about their qualifications, employment history or problematic past. A simple and often overlooked way of mitigating unfortunate surprises like these is conducting pre-employment checks to verify whether a candidate is as suitable, qualified and impressive as their resume or interview has portrayed them to be.

Read more...

Employer did not force an employee to resign by enforcing its hybrid working arrangement

A direction you can’t resist

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 lockdowns have changed the way in which most businesses work. While working remotely has provided employers and employees with flexibility, many employers have now started directing employees to return to the workplace either full-time or under hybrid working arrangements.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.