Human Capital: Your survey in Human Capital earlier this year indicated there was still a lot of concern regarding flexible work arrangements and parental leave entitlements. Have things improved?
Fay Calderone: Employees currently have significant protection and entitlements in relation to their family/carers' responsibilities, safeguarded through state and federal anti-discrimination and unlawful termination laws that were also in place (albeit in a more limited framework) in the Federal Workplace Relations Act.
According to our survey results published in Human Capital issue 7.2, 87% of employers already have some type of flexible work strategy in place. Employees are currently requesting and being granted carer's leave (22%), flexible start and finish times (21%), working offsite (18%), part-time (23%) and job share arrangements (16%).
The National Employment Standards (NES), to be implemented on 1 January 2010, formalises this system and will create awareness amongst employees of the workplace flexibility options available to them. In the UK, following the introduction of similar flexibility provisions, employees were found to be more aware of their right to request flexible working conditions then they were prior to the introduction of the laws.
HC: What exactly do employers have to do to ensure they adhere to these legislative changes?
FC: Compliance with National Employment Standards from 1 January 2010
Section 13(4) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) states the employer must give an employee a written response to a request for flexible working arrangements within 21 days, stating whether the employer grants or refuses the request.
There is no definition of 'flexible working arrangements' in the new NES and therefore the scope of arrangements reached by employers and employees to assist in balancing workplace and family responsibilities is broad.
Under s.13(5), the employer may refuse the request only on 'reasonable business grounds'. This term is not defined within the NES, however it is noted that relevant factors may include costs of accommodating the employees request, the employer's ability to reorganise work arrangements and the business needs of the employer.
Finally, if the employer refuses the request, any written response must include reasons for the refusal, as stipulated in s.13(6).
Protection from Adverse Action from 1 July 2009
In addition to the procedures required by the NES, the provisions in the Act which commenced on 1 July 1009 provide:
a) An employer must not dismiss, injure or alter an employer's position or discriminate against current employees; and
b) A prospective employer must not refuse to employ a prospective employee or discriminate on the terms and conditions on which a prospective employee is offered employment, because of an employee's carer's responsibilities (among other discriminatory grounds).
Employers/prospective employers may be subject to penalties for breaching these provisions and Court Orders may be made for reinstatement, compensation or injunctions
HC: It doesn't impact on all employers or employees does it?
FC: The NES applies to any employee who is a parent, or has a responsibility for the care of a child under school age or a disabled child under the age of 18. Such a person may submit a request to an employer for a change in working arrangements for the purpose of assisting the employee to care for the child (see s.13(1) of the Act).
The employee is not entitled to make the request unless the employee has completed at least 12 months of continuous service with the employer immediately before making the request. For a casual employee, the employer must have been engaged by the employer on a regular basis for a sequence of periods of employment during a period of at least 12 months immediately before making the request. Additionally, they must have a reasonable expectation of continuing engagement by the employer on a regular and systematic basis (see s.13(2) of the Act).
HC: Why have these legislative changes been made?
FC: Advancements in technology have spurred changes in the way business is conducted. Business developments including Blackberrys, remote access to work emails and teleconferences allow work to be completed both outside the office and outside regular office hours, providing for greater variability in business practice. The changes in legislation allow Australia to be proactive rather than reactive to technological as well as ideological shifts.
Additionally, in terms of international trends, countries such as Sweden which are relatively supportive of workplace mobility, have higher productivity compared to countries such a France, which are far more rigid in their approach to workplace mobility and have lower workplace productivity levels.
Changes in workplace laws with regard to workplace flexibility may therefore be an opportunity to change 'old-school' attitudes whilst increasing productivity and attracting talent through untapped labour sources.
HC: What are the potential hurdles for companies looking to implement flexible work arrangements?
FC: Potential impediments to the implementation of the flexibility provisions of the NES are both technological and cultural.
Some workplaces do not have the resources to facilitate working from home. According to our survey there is resistance to workplace flexibility and fear of the consequences of the new legislation for a number of reasons. In particular, some 53% of respondents were concerned about worker's productivity outside of the office and some smaller companies are worried about the ability to implement a system providing for greater flexibility and the diversion of resources in doing so (48%). Other companies feared (whether rightly or wrongly) a detrimental effect on workplace culture (46%) and the potential for negative impacts on the morale of employees unable to access the new flexibility provisions.
HC: What should employers be doing prior to 1 January 2010?
FC: We recommend employers establish procedures management guidelines and train all levels of management to ensure a more seamless and consistent approach to compliance with the flexibility provisions. As stated, the NES does not provide a precise definition of 'flexible working arrangements' or 'reasonable business grounds' so the parameters need to be set both procedurally and conceptually for the consideration of the requests to ensure compliance with the new regime.