The ongoing case shows discontent at the C-suite level but shouldn’t have lasting impacts
Woolworths Group’s chief growth officer is suing the supermarket giant for discrimination following claims of excessive overtime and bullying.
Miwah Van has filed a damages claim in the Federal Court against Woolworths Group and several current and former executives, alleging discrimination and other unlawful treatment following her diagnosis with breast cancer and during a major corporate “transformation” program.
She claimed she was working around 120 hours a week and was hospitalised five times due to this. Van was then overlooked for a more senior role.
This case highlights that extreme overtime does not guarantee promotion. In Van’s case, it certainly did not pay off.
Speaking with HRD, Dentons' employment and safety partner, Nick Linke, said he doesn’t believe this case will set a precedent for workplace overtime.
Van is in a senior executive position. With this responsibility comes a significantly larger pay package. This means overtime can be expected.
“The issue is often complicated, particularly for senior executives, because it is not always obvious when an employer specifically requires the employee to work the hours or if the hours are being worked because the employee wants a promotion, or wants to achieve bonus linked KPIs or simply because they feel an obligation to their colleagues or their employer to work more,” said Linke.
“This type of workplace behaviour should be carefully monitored by employers to ensure they are adequately managing the psychosocial risks it can create and preventing burnout, illnesses and mistakes that can result from excessive work hours.”
What is considered “excessive” varies drastically, depending on the position. Linke noted that in some roles, 40 hours can be considered excessive, while in others it is perfectly normal.
He believes that this case may provide some interesting guidance for future overtime incidents but will likely not impact law much more.
The health issues that have come with this case make Van’s circumstances unique and Linke acknowledged that the over 100 hours each week that Van alleges are not healthy.
“Under the Fair Work Act 2009, an employer must not request or require a full-time employee to work more than 38 hours per week unless the additional hours are reasonable,” said Linke.
He said employers must consider multiple factors when assessing the reasonableness of overtime, such as:
- any risk to employee health and safety
- personal circumstances including family responsibilities
- the needs of the workplace
- whether there is an entitlement to overtime or other compensation for the extra work or receive a level of remuneration that reflects an expectation of those extra hours
- the nature of the employee’s role and level of responsibility
- the usual patterns of work in the industry
“The issue overlaps with the new right to disconnect laws introduced by the Albanese government in 2024. The factors which the Fair Work Commission will consider when determining if an employee’s refusal to engage with after hours contact was reasonable, are similar,” added Linke.
