EMPLOYERS in NSW should seriously consider any requests for flexible work options from mothers returning from maternity leave following a legal decision concerning part-time work for employees with caring responsibilities, according to a Sydney-based law firm
EMPLOYERS in NSW should seriously consider any requests for flexible work options from mothers returning from maternity leave following a legal decision concerning part-time work for employees with caring responsibilities, according to a Sydney-based law firm.
In the decision of Reddy v International Cargo Express [2004], the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal determined that a woman who was denied part-time work with a request for varied hours following her return from maternity leave was indirectly discriminated against on the ground of her caring responsibilities.
“Whilst not going so far as to suggest that employees have a right to part-time work following maternity leave, the decision strongly implies that employers (including small employers) give such a request proper consideration in light of the duties of the employee’s position,” said Amber Sharp, senior associate with Henry Davis York Lawyers.
Sharp said a capricious rejection of such requests may expose an employer to liability, and also advised employers to consider whether they should offer to trial proposed flexible work arrangements.
“The outcome in Reddy is consistent with the growing body of Australian case law which is, on the whole, supportive of employees with carer responsibilities who seek workplace flexibility. Employers need to consider this trend and give considered responses to any requests,” she said.
After being employed with International Cargo Express for almost five years, Ms Reddy went on 12 months maternity leave. Two months prior to the date upon which she was due to return from maternity leave, Ms Reddy asked for permission to return to work three days a week with hours of 7.30am to 4pm on the grounds of family responsibilities.
However International Cargo Express rejected her request, claiming that, as a small organisation, it lacked financial resources to accommodate her request.
The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal rejected International Cargo Express’ argument that it wasn’t in a financial position to accommodate Ms Reddy’s request, highlighting the expense in training replacement staff, and the “efficiencies and savings for any organisation in retaining experience and well trained staff”.
