EMPLOYER GROUPS have hit back at a decision by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to give Australian workers the right to double the amount of unpaid parental leave on the birth or adoption of a child claiming it is economically unviable.
EMPLOYER GROUPS have hit back at a decision by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to give Australian workers the right to double the amount of unpaid parental leave on the birth or adoption of a child claiming it is economically unviable.
The AIRC is believed to have tried to strike a better balance between work and family life in its Family Provisions Test Case decision to allow two years' unpaid parental leave and the right to work part-time until children reach school age for employees.
However, expected sweeping workplace reforms by the Howard Government later this year mean workers may have to negotiate for the new conditions themselves and employers can refuse leave requests on reasonable grounds.
“In deciding to only give employees a ‘right to request’ extended parental leave … the AIRC also decided another right – the right of an employer to refuse the request on reasonable grounds,” said Peter Hendy, chief executive of The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI).
“The grounds on which an employer can exercise their right to refuse requests are broad – in the words of the AIRC: ‘reasonable grounds related to the effect on the workplace or the employer’s business’.
“Such grounds might include cost, lack of adequate replacement staff, loss of efficiency and the impact on customer service,” he said.
As the nation’s largest employer organisation, ACCI, called on employer bodies to ensure that employers were aware that the AIRC decision did not give workers a right to the new parental leave.
“The ‘right to request’ an additional year of parental leave … is fundamentally different from a right to have it. If workers think that they have a right to two years parental leave they will be disappointed when they find out they do not,” he said.
Workers need to be reasonable in their expectations about what work and family changes their employers can implement, he suggested.
“Whilst a decision like this sounds benign in theory, small and medium employers will have serious reservations about its practicality if employee expectations are unrealistic,” Hendy said.
“Employers will need to choose between competing requests by employees and the competing needs of the business and its customers. This can lead to disagreement and dispute.”
Meanwhile, unions are concerned that many of the new rights for employees that have caring responsibilities won’t become reality.
“Unions are pleased that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has … approved the key elements of the ACTU’s long-running Work and Family Test Case,” said ACTU president Sharan Burrow.
“But unions are concerned the success of this result will be short-lived unless the Howard Government guarantees that working families will have these rights in its proposed new minimum employment conditions due to become law in October this year.”
Although, Prime Minister John Howard and his Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, say they will consider the new conditions it is unlikely that the new conditions will become a minimum standard for workers under the new workplace arrangements.
Chief executive of the Australian Industry Group (AIG), Heather Ridout, described the AIRC decision as not being “without risk” despite the Commission taking a prudent approach.
“It is hoped that the Commission has got the balance right and the decision will not prove to be inconsistent with the needs of industry and the interests of women of child-bearing age,”she said.
