The following summarises some of the key areas of ARA’s submission regarding the Bill: Workplace agreements
The BOOT test
ARA is concerned about the proposed “better off overall” test (BOOT) which would require agreements to provide superior conditions to any binding award and minimum conditions of employment. The ARA believes this will ultimately deter retailers from entering into workplace agreements and the Government appears to have no sufficient reasoning as to why agreements should be required to afford a higher safety net of conditions rather than simply to not disadvantage employees.
Good faith bargaining
Further concern was raised in relation to proposed good faith bargaining provisions which would effectively force employers to the negotiation table when they may not have any interest in implementing a workplace agreement. This could occur despite retailers being content operating under the Award and minimum conditions of employment. ARA believes unions could take advantage of retailers by threatening them with applications for bargaining orders if they refuse to give in to union demands. In its submission, the ARA suggested employers should be free to choose whether or not they enter into workplace agreements.
“Low paid” provisions
Proposed low paid provisions potentially pave the way for Fair Work Australia to make determinations regarding bargaining arrangements for individual or whole industry sectors. However, the Bill fails to define exactly who the “low paid” are and ARA is concerned that it could cover all award-reliant employees. Again, employers content with operating under the Award safety net may find themselves roped into other potentially more costly arrangements. ARA has called for the Government to provide further clarity in this area and is concerned about the prospect of unions engaging in hostile bargaining actions against retailers.
Right of entry
The ARA is also concerned about the proposed enhanced rights of entry for unions. The Bill would see unions having the right to access any record or document relating to suspected breaches of legislative requirements. The right to inspect and copy such documents is particularly alarming given they would not be confined to employee records. The ARA has suggested that any right to inspect and/or copy documents must be confined to employee records and only those of union members.
Unfair dismissal
The Bill proposes that “genuine redundancies” will not be considered unfair, however, it fails to define the term “operational requirements” for this purpose. There is also uncertainty regarding the employer’s obligations to redeploy staff and further clarity has been sought on this. The apparent removal of the exemption for casual employees is of significant concern given the high level of reliance the retail sector has on such employees. ARA’s complete submission can be accessed on our website at www.retail.org.au.
ARA will soon commence holding briefing sessions with members regarding the reforms and expressions of interest should be emailed to employmentrelations@retail.org.au. Members with any queries regarding the Bill should contact ARA Employment Relations for assistance on 1300 368 041 or email employmentrelations@retail.org.au. Please remember to have your membership number handy before you make contact.
