Peak business group warns six-month notice period could discourage WFH accommodations
The Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) has slammed a new union proposal that seeks a six-month notice period for enforcement of office-return orders.
Innes Willox, chief executive of the Ai Group, said the proposal was entirely unnecessary and "would inevitably operate to discourage employers from continuing to adopt an accommodating approach to employee requests to work from home".
"The Fair Work Act already gives employees the right to request flexible working arrangements, including working from home, in a range of circumstances. Employers can only reject these requests on reasonable business grounds," Willox said in a statement.
"A simplistic requirement that employers give six months' notice of any expectation that workers actually come to the office will certainly cause many employers to hesitate before agreeing to trial working from home arrangements out of fear that they won't be able to require a return to the office in a reasonable timeframe if circumstances change or the arrangement is proving to be unworkable," Willox said in a statement.
Union's WFH proposal
His remarks came after the Australian Services Union (ASU) announced it would move to add a clause for a universal right to work from home to the Fair Work Commission this week.
Under the claim, the ASU wants clerical and administrative staff to be granted the presumed right to work from home if reasonably requested.
If the request is rejected, employers should grant the employees 26 weeks of notice before enforcing a return to the office, the ABC News reported.
"Our survey shows 98% of workers see WFH as 'very' or 'extremely important.' Now we're turning that evidence into action," the ASU said on Facebook.
'Loopiest' union proposal yet
Willox said the proposal is "perhaps the loopiest yet" from unions.
"The proposal is not only entirely unnecessary and unreasonable, it would inevitably operate to discourage employers from continuing to adopt an accommodating approach to employee requests to work from home," he said.
"The proposal also ignores the reality that if an employer has given a worker a commitment to allow them to work from home on an ongoing basis, they simply cannot force that employee to return unilaterally under existing laws."
According to Willox, an independent survey carried out by the FWC already shows that 94% of employees who requested working from home also had their request approved or partly approved.
"The Fair Work Act already gives employees the right to request flexible working arrangements, including working from home, in a range of circumstances. Employers can only reject these requests on reasonable business grounds," he added.
Eliminating penalty rates
Meanwhile, Willox also defended Ai Group's proposal to the FWC on varying the Clerks Awards on penalty rates after ASU accusations that business wants to eliminate them for employees working from home.
The Ai Group chief said it only wants to include a model clause enabling employers and employees to agree to vary terms of the award as part of WFH implementation.
"We want employers to be free to work with employees to structure their working hours in a way that suits them," Willox said.
"This isn't about cutting existing entitlements, but it does need to be recognised that the current award terms aren't fit for purpose."
The work-from-home debate surfaced just ahead of this week's Economic Roundtable, which is being attended by leaders and representatives from government, business, and unions.
The roundtable is also expected to see a discussion on union-pushed four-day work weeks, which businesses previously slammed as an "anti-productivity thought bubble."
