Resources: Blogs

It is all in the flexicution

Blogs
|

Flexible working arrangements

What does an employer do in circumstances where it has granted flexible working arrangements and it is no longer able to accommodate the employee?

What does an employer do in circumstances where it has granted flexible working arrangements and it is no longer able to accommodate the employee?

The NSW Industrial Relations Commission (NSW IRC) in Construction Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (New South Wales Branch) v South Western Sydney Local Health District [2016] NSWIRComm 1047 (Painter Case) dealt with this very issue.

This case is a good reminder for employers about what they should do if circumstances arise where flexible working arrangements need to be revoked.

In the Painter Case, two painters had been working 6am to 2:30pm. This flexible working arrangement had allowed them to collect their children from primary school for the last eight years.

In 2015, Liverpool Hospital (the Hospital) moved them to a 7am to 3:30pm roster (in line with most of the Hospital’s trade staff) as part of the Hospital’s push to boost response times and efficiency. The painters argued that the changes would require them to pay for childcare and that their hours of work did not have any practical difference on the Hospital as painting was not “emergency response work.” In addition, they argued that the changes were discriminatory against people with carer’s responsibilities. In response, the Hospital argued that the measures were necessary because the Hospital was one of the busiest in NSW and recorded an $8.2 million deficit in the 2014-15 financial year.

Taking into account the parties’ submissions, the NSW IRC confirmed that there was an “overwhelming principle” that employers have a “long established right of management to allocate and arrange work and for employees to respond to reasonable management requirements and directions.” The NSW IRC ruled in favour of the Hospital on the basis that the painters had failed to show the hours proposed by the Hospital meant they were performing work that was unfair, unjust or unreasonable. The NSW IRC directed the employees to perform the new hours as directed by the Hospital.

This confirmation of the basic principle that employers have the right to allocate and arrange work in accordance with its needs is welcome news to employers. Employers should ensure that revoking long established flexible work arrangements does not produce an unfair or unjust outcome and should otherwise take the necessary steps to ensure work is performed as required to meet operational demands. As a matter of best practice, employers should communicate the intention to revoke the flexible working arrangements as soon as possible to the employee and in writing (with detailed reasons) and provide the employee with as much notice as possible about the change.

Similar articles

Fair Work Commission critical of investigation process despite the employer’s valid reason for dismissal

Less is more

Employers often see the disciplinary process as an opportunity to raise every single indiscretion by an employee – even though the issues occurred in the past or are minor in nature when compared to other misconduct. However, this approach can weaken the employer’s position, rather than strengthen the decision to dismiss.

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation June 2020

Cases and Legislation June 2020 NEWS ALERTS NSW Work Health Safety Legislation Amendments The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) was recently amended giving effect to some of the recommendations of the 2018 national review of the modern WHS Act. ...

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation February 2020

Cases and Legislation February 2020 Post-Employment Conduct “Ex-employee fined for contempt after breaching Court undertakings" Maxilift Australia Pty Ltd v Donnelly [2020] SASC 8 Executive summary A former sales manager has been fined $7,115 and found in contempt of...

Read more...

Commission finds employer’s unsubstantiated allegations rendered dismissal unfair

Not mushroom for error

Where there is a factual dispute about allegations made against an employee, employers must ensure that the allegations are properly tested before proceeding to a disciplinary process. This will ensure that the employee has been provided with procedural fairness and any reasons relied on by the employer as grounds for dismissal are valid.

Read more...

Commission finds role with additional 88km travel time was not suitable alternative employment

The road less travelled

An employer may apply to the Fair Work Commission to have an employee’s redundancy pay reduced to a specified amount (which may be nil) in circumstances where it has obtained “other acceptable employment” for the employee.

Read more...

FWC finds Philippine-based worker entitled to claim unfair dismissal

Objection overruled

When engaging overseas workers to perform work for an Australian entity, employers need to be mindful of the risks that such workers may be considered employees to whom the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) might apply.

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.