Latest news with #workplacerights
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Major pay move for 2.6 million 'hardworking' Aussies: 'Keep their heads above water'
The government is trying to protect the pay rights of roughly 2.6 million workers by introducing new legislation to parliament. The bill would safeguard penalty and overtime rates for those on certain award contracts. The legislation is being introduced on Thursday, and Labor will be seeking support from both the Coalition and the Greens to get it approved. Employment and workplace relations minister Amanda Rishworth said this measure is essential for "hardworking" people. 'If you rely on the modern award safety net and work weekends, public holidays, early mornings or late nights, you deserve to have your wages protected,' she said. RELATED Major update on $5,520 HECS cash boost for millions The top 10 highest salaries in Australia paying up to $700,000 Rare 5 cent coin worth 25,000 times its value due to 'double headed' detail 'Millions of hardworking Australians rely on penalty rates and overtime rates to keep their heads above water, which is why this bill is so critical." Labor went to the election promising to protect penalty and overtime rates after a push from the Australian Retailers Association (ARA) to change how these pay benefits could work. The ARA made an application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that included more than a dozen argued the current General Retail Industry Award 2020 (GRIA) was unnecessarily convoluted because there are 994 individual pay rates that spanned nearly 100 pages. So, it suggested award workers earning $53,670 and above could be exempted from benefits like overtime rates, evening and weekend penalty rates, and annual leave loading. It also wanted to reduce rest times between shifts from 12 hours to 10 hours, and allow workers to waive their meal breaks to finish their shifts early. In exchange, workers would be given an opt-in 25 per cent boost to their base rate. But the application copped a spray from Labor at the time. 'Labor's longstanding position is that workers' wages should not go backwards," the then workplace relations minister Murray Watt said in a counter submission to the FWC. 'If you give up your nights and weekends to keep Australia fed and clothed, you deserve your penalty rates." How would the legislation work and will it pass? The government is now going one step further by bringing in strengthened legislation for award worker pay. Under Labor's proposal, an award would not be allowed to be altered if it could be shown that just one worker would be worse off under an arrangement that involved a change in overtime or penalty rates. However, the government could find it difficult to get this legislation passed. The opposition said the FWC already has enough powers to look after all types of workers and ensure they have the best possible conditions. 'There is no threat to penalty rates,' shadow industrial relations and employment spokesman Tim Wilson said recently. 'What there is, is a political focus of the government that isn't focused towards improving the economic conditions to help small businesses grow, to enable them to go on and employ the next generation of workers, to give those first generation, those first jobs to young Australians so that they can be independent, and be able to get on with their economic futures.'
News.com.au
7 days ago
- Business
- News.com.au
Labor to introduce new Bill to protect penalty, overtime rates for 2.6 million award workers
Labor will move to protect penalty and overtime rates for about 2.6 million workers, saying 'hardworking' Aussies rely on the entitlements to 'keep their heads above water'. Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Amanda Rishworth will introduce the Bill on Thursday, and urged the Greens and Coalition to support the proposed legislation. The law would prohibit the Fair Work Commission to reduce an overtime or penalty rate, or substitute the entitlements if it reduces the overall take-home pay a worker would otherwise receive. An award would not be able to be altered if there was evidence that even a single worker would be worse off under an arrangement which traded an overtime or penalty entitlement. Ms Rishworth said the change would protect about 2.6 million award-reliant workers. 'If you rely on the modern award safety net and work weekends, public holidays, early mornings or late nights, you deserve to have your wages protected,' she said. 'Millions of hardworking Australians rely on penalty rates and overtime rates to keep their heads above water, which is why this Bill is so critical and should receive the support of both the Opposition and the Greens.' The election promise was prompted by a FWC review launched the Australian Retailers Association to allow senior management to take a 25 per cent wage increase above minimum award entitlements in exchange for overtime, weekend and public holiday penalty rates and rest breaks. The move has been backed by the supermarket giants, plus beauty giant Mecca, as well as Kmart, Costco and 7-Eleven. Prior to the election, then employment minister Murray Watt wrote to the FWC to stop large retailers from cutting the entitlements, in a rare act of government intervention. Enshrining penalty rates was a key demand from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, with secretary Sally McManus previously arguing workers should be compensated for sacrificing their weekends. However, the legislation will likely will likely be opposed by the Coalition, with industrial relations and employment spokesman Tim Wilson stating the independent FWC was already responsible for ensuring 'workers get the best arrangements possible for a fair days work'. Instead he lashed Labor's proposed Bill as being politically motivated. 'There is no threat to penalty rates,' he said on Saturday. 'What there is, is a political focus of the Government that isn't focused towards improving the economic conditions to help small businesses grow, to enable them to go on and employ the next generation of workers, to give those first generation, those first jobs to young Australians so that they can be independent and be able to get on with their economic futures.'
Irish Times
21-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Nail bar worker wins €1,000 for unfair dismissal
A nail technician let go just a month after starting work has won €1,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal after her employer fell foul of an anti-victimisation clause in the National Minimum Wage Act. Sole trader Colm Tyrell, operator of a beauty salon Love Your Nails, was directed to pay €1,000 to the worker, Odonchimeg Genenbat, for what a Workplace Relations Commission adjudicator called a 'very arbitrary dismissal without any proper procedures' last Christmas. Ms Genenbat, a nail technician earning €260 for a 20-hour week, told a workplace rights hearing in May this year that she was hired on 26 November 2024, and was informed by text message on 27 December that her job had been 'terminated'. Giving evidence through an interpreter, she explained that she was furnished with neither any standard employment documentation nor any payslips when she started work. She said 'all was well' until she asked for payslips on 14 December to find out her rate of pay. READ MORE Having taken holidays on Christmas Eve, she was told she was out of a job three days later without any of the normal procedures, interviews or appeals required in a dismissal taking place, she told the tribunal. Ms Genenbet, who worked at the salon just over a month, argued she fell under an exception to the usual minimum requirement of 12 months' continuous service to be shielded by the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. She cited Section 36 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, stating that her request for her payslips on 14 December put her in the category of a worker who had sought information about her wages and been refused. Adjudicator Michael McEntee recorded that her employer, Mr Tyrell, had failed to show up to the hearing on 23 May this year. He noted an email from the employer stating that the failure to give Ms Genenbat her payslips was an 'administrative error'. The employer wrote that he came to the 'difficult decision not to continue her employment' because of alleged 'work performance' issues. These claimed issues were the 'inability to complete customer treatments in the time allocated' and 'customer satisfaction issues', Mr Tyrell wrote. In his decision, Mr McEntee noted that the fact of dismissal was not in dispute and ruled that Ms Genembat was entitled to pursue her complaint despite her short service. 'Either by accident or design, the complainant was able to utilise a mechanism to have her case heard under the Unfair Dismissals Act. Accordingly, the absence of normal procedures makes the dismissal unfair, and redress has to be awarded,' he added. He awarded €1,000 in compensation, noting Ms Genenbat's short period in employment and 'modest' wages. Mr McEntee wrote that the employer had taken a 'somewhat cavalier approach' by failing to attend the hearing and said this was a factor in his decision. Mr Tyrell is the first employer in over two and a half years to lose an Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 claim relying on the extension of the law to a worker who has sought a statement of pay under Section 36 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000.
RNZ News
16-07-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Legislation that lets workers talk about salaries likely to pass into law
Labour MP Camilla Bellich. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith A Labour party member's bill that seeks to stop employers enforcing gag orders on workers talking about their salaries is likely to pass into law. Labour MP Camilla Bellich's bill - called the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill - passed its second reading on Wednesday night. Currently, employers can put pay secrecy clauses in workers' contracts , preventing them from discussing their salaries with colleagues. Bellich's bill would make pay gag clauses unenforcable, meaning employers could not take legal action if an employee does talk about pay. She told RNZ she was pleased to see the bill progress. "Ending the chilling effect of pay secrecy will allow employees to discuss their pay more freely, and allow any unfairness or discrimination in pay to be remedied." She said it was a "small step" towards "greater transparency and equality" in the workplace. The National Party supported the bill at first reading and indicated during the debate for the second reading it would continue to do so, meaning it could potentially become law. The acting chair of the education and workforce select committee Vanessa Weenink said the bill was a sensible step in the right direction. "I was proud of our parliament and proud of National's ongoing work to reduce the gender pay gap," she said. "I want to highlight the voluntary pay gap calculator for businesses and hope when this bill becomes law, that it opens up discussions about pay." ACT and New Zealand First voted against the amendment bill, and are likely to do so again at third reading. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Irish Times
11-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Employee sacked after HR chief recorded him on phone call wins €10k for unfair dismissal
An employee who was sacked when a recording of him venting his 'frustrations' to his company's human resources chief was sent to the CEO months later has won €10,000 for unfair dismissal. Thomas Delaney secured the award on foot of a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against NSP Expert Lab Solutions in a decision just published by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). Mr Delaney, who lost his job of over eight years with the firm in May 2024, told the tribunal that he thought his conversation with its HR chief in February that year was 'in confidence' and that he never consented to a recording. Representing himself at a WRC hearing in August 2024, he explained that he was 'off on stress leave' at the time of the call and said that he 'vented' frustrations over the phone. READ MORE His evidence was that the company's head of HR was 'biased in her dealings' with him from the phone call to his dismissal. Mr Delaney told the WRC the recording was made in February, but 'was only sent to the CEO in May'. Within 24 hours of the recording been sent to the chief executive, he was dismissed from his €56,000-a-year job, he said. His position was that the disciplinary process followed by his employer was 'based on assumptions', 'flawed', and lacking in 'transparency'. He pointed out that he was given 'no opportunity to respond to the case' and was subjected to a disproportionate sanction. He said he never received a copy of the transcript of the phone call relied on to dismiss him and had no opportunity to address its contents or any allegations against him. Company solicitor Malachy Kearney submitted that the firm received a 'protected disclosure' in the form of 'a recorded conversation between the complainant and a member of [its] staff'. 'In that conversation, the complainant had raised issues that were considered to amount to gross misconduct. Arising from this, the complainant was summarily dismissed,' Mr Kearney submitted. 'As per the provisions of its handbook, the company reserved the right to bypass any step in the disciplinary process if it feels that severity of the action warranted it,' Mr Kearney submitted. 'It was decided that in this instance the working relationship with the complainant was irretrievable and that dismissal was the only outcome,' he added. The dismissal was effected by asking Mr Delaney to report to the company's offices, whereupon a letter of dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct was read to him, Mr Kearney submitted. The complainant was then required to surrender his laptop, phone, credit card and company car keys, before being sent home in a taxi, Mr Kearney explained. The tribunal noted that there was 'no oral evidence' provided by company witnesses. Adjudicator Conor Stokes noted on the basis of the company's written submissions that Mr Delaney 'was not party to the investigation [or] disciplinary process'. He was 'simply called in to have the decision 'read at him',' and had no opportunity to respond to any allegations or complaints against him, or to make representations on his behalf. He concluded that Mr Delaney had been denied 'a fair and impartial determination of the issues' and that the employee was unfairly dismissed. The adjudicator noted Mr Delaney's loss of €1,085-a-week gross pay over a 14-week period of unemployment between dismissal and a WRC hearing in August 2024, and a lack of evidence of efforts to seek alternative employment during that period. Mr Stokes concluded that 'compensation amounting to €10,000 in respect of loss of earnings' was the appropriate award.
