Author: PWLadmin

  • Social Media Policy for Your Workplace – Dealing with Facebook, Twitter, Blogs at Work

    A social media policy outlines for employees the guidelines or principles of communicating in the online world.

    A social media policy can be a company’s first line of defense to mitigate risk for both employer and employee.  You may already have a confidentiality agreement but it might not be enough.  Adding a few lines in the employee handbook to clarify that the confidentiality agreement covers employee interactions on social media sites might suffice.  But it is advised to create a separate social media policy to have something specific on file and accessible to employees and that they are aware of the policies existence.

    When drafting a policy, be sure to:

    1.    Remind employees to familiarise themselves with the employment agreement and policies included in the employee handbook.

    2.    State that the policy applies to multi-media, social networking websites, and blogs for both professional and personal use.

    3.    Internet postings should not disclose any information that is confidential or proprietary to the company or to any third party that has disclosed information to the company.

    4.    If an employee comments on any aspect of the company’s business they must clearly identify themselves as an employee and include a disclaimer.  The disclaimer should be something like “the views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the company.”

    6.    Internet postings should not include company logos or trademarks unless permission is asked for and granted.

    7.    Internet postings must respect copyright, privacy, fair use, financial disclosure, and other applicable laws.

    8.    Employees should neither claim nor imply that they are speaking on the company’s behalf.

    9.    Corporate blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, etc., could require approval when the employee is posting about the company and the industry.

    10.    That the company reserves the right to request that certain subjects are avoided, withdraw certain posts, and remove inappropriate comments.

  • Review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

    Review of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

    Speaking in Melbourne in late December, the Government’s new Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten, said the review of the Fair Work Act would be conducted by Reserve Bank board member John Edwards, former Federal Court judge, Michael Moore, and workplace relations academic Professor Ron McCallum, reporting by 31 May 2012.

    The review would examine and report on:

    1. the extent to which the Fair Work legislation was operating as intended including:
      • the creation of a clear & stable framework of rights & obligations which is simple &       straightforward to understand;
      • the emphasis on enterprise-level collective bargaining underpinned by simple good faith bargaining obligations & related powers of Fair Work Australia;
      • the promotion of fairness & representation at work;
      • effective procedures to resolve grievances and disputes;
      • genuine unfair dismissal protection;
      • the creation of a new institutional framework & a single & accessible compliance regime; &
      • any differential impacts across regions, industries, occupations & groups of workers including (but not limited to) women, young workers & people from non-English speaking backgrounds; plus

        2. areas where the evidence indicates that the legislation’s operation could be improved consistent with its objectives.

  • Sacked Over Facebook “pub talk” Comments – Reinstatement

    Sacked Over Facebook “pub talk” Comments – Reinstatement

    Fair Work Australia (FWA) has found a Linfox truck driver’s comments about managers, on what he believed to be a private Facebook page, did not justify his dismissal.  FWA has criticised Linfox for failing to keep pace with other large employers that have “detailed social media policies” & make substantial efforts to educate their employees about them.  In reinstating the driver, Commissioner Roberts said while some of the comments may be considered initially offensive, when read as a whole they had, “the flavour of a conversation in a pub or cafe, although conducted in an electronic format“.

    POLICY ISSUE
    The Commissioner said that Linfox had no social media policy in place at the time the comments were discovered, nor had it subsequently developed such a policy, preferring to rely on its Induction Training & Employee Handbook.  “In the current electronic age, this is not sufficient & many large companies have published detailed social media policies and taken pains to acquaint their employees with those policies. Linfox did not.”

    Commissioner Roberts said, after examining the evidence, there was no valid reason for the termination of the driver’s employment & that his dismissal was harsh, unjust & unreasonable.  He ordered Linfox to reinstate him & pay his lost wages.

    Glen Stutsel v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FWA 8444 (19 December 2011)

  • Adverse Action Claim Fails

    Adverse Action Claim Fails – Incapacitated Employee

    The Federal Magistrates Court has ruled in late December last year that a federal government department did not take unlawful adverse action against a former employee who was given several opportunities to exercise her workplace right to a re-examination of her retirement on the grounds of incapacity.

  • Fair Work Australia: IT manager sacked for deliberately stopping emails from reaching the mobile phone of the organisation’s IR manager.

    Fair Work Australia: IT manager sacked for deliberately stopping emails from reaching the mobile phone of the organisation’s IR manager.

    Fair Work Australia has upheld the St Vincent de Paul Society’s dismissal of an IT manager who deliberately stopped emails from reaching the mobile phone of the organisation’s IR manager.  The dismissal was on the grounds of misconduct.

    IT Manager Sacked

    Senior Deputy President Hamberger found that the IT Manager, Mr. Williams, had deliberately disabled his employer’s ActiveSync software with the effect of denying the Workplace Relations Manager, Mr. McInerney, access to his email on his mobile devices.  The IT manager disabled the system following an argument with Mr. McInerney about
    the organisation’s motor vehicle policy.  Calamity, an IT security company, investigated the IT Manager’s actions and confirmed that he had disabled the ActiveSync software.

    Senior Deputy President Hamberger said he found Mr. Williams to be an unreliable witness, and he proceeded to accept that the IT Manager had accessed the email accounts of a number of employees, without their permission or knowledge.

    Calamity’s investigation indicated that he had concentrated on the accounts of the
    Workplace Relations Manager, Mr. McInerney, and St Vincent de Paul NSW Chapter Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Miller.

    Senior Deputy President Hamberger found the IT Manager’s conduct had been “completely at odds” with his employer’s reasonable expectation that he act with a high degree of integrity and honesty.  Disabling the ActiveSync and the unauthorised access to email accounts were actions that constituted “clear instances of misconduct“, he said, and this was reinforced by Mr. Williams’ lack of honesty in his response to the allegations.

    Mr. William’s alleged that he had been bullied by the Workplace Relations Manager, however, Senior Deputy President Hamberger found no evidence to support the IT Manager’s allegations, “I indicate for the record that I saw no evidence that that the [IR manager] had been bullied by anyone“.

    Mr Mark Williams v St Vincent de Paul Society [2011] FWA 6457 (27 September 2011)

  • Being Sacked for Facebook Comments

    FWA has upheld the sacking of an employee who posted an aggressive rant
    on his Facebook page about his work from his home computer, outside of work
    hours.  Deputy President Swan rejected the employee’s unfair dismissal claim and said the fact the comments were posted from his home computer and out of work hours, “does not make any difference…the comments were read by work colleagues and it was not long before [the colleague targeted in the comments] was advised of what had occurred. The [employer] has rightfully submitted, in my view, that the separation between home and work is now less pronounced than it once used to be.”

    Swan DP, in finding the Good Guys employee’s actions constituted serious
    misconduct, said that, “…[it was] difficult to accept that the [employee] was unaware of the consequences of his actions“.

    The Good Guy’s Employee Handbook referred to the need to be courteous and polite to colleagues as well as customers and contained detailed policies, including on sexual harassment and workplace bullying.  However, Swan DP found that even without the Handbook, “common sense would dictate that one could not write and therefore publish insulting and threatening comments about another employee in the manner in which this occurred”.

    The employee did not name the Good Guys, but posted on his Facebook page that he: “…wonders how the f@#k work can be so f@#king useless and mess up my pay again.  C#*ts are going down tomorrow.”

    The employee argued that his Facebook page was set to the maximum privacy setting and only his select group of 70 friends could see what he had written.  But Swan DP accepted that the group of 70 friends who had access to his Facebook page included some of his co-workers.  So, even though the employee had blocked the Operations Manager’s access that day (who was also a friend on his Facebook page), she had been advised about the
    comments from others at work.

    The employee advised FWA that he was frustrated with the problems in sorting
    out his pay following a move to a commission-based system, but Swan DP said
    there were “other avenues” he could have pursued, including raising it with the Director.   She also noted that a dispute settling procedure was available in the Employee Handbook, and that the employee could have consulted the Fair Work Ombudsman, which he had contacted initially, but chosen not to follow up.


  • Long Service Leave Entitlement in NSW

    The Long Service Leave Act 1955

    • Applies to all employees in NSW – full time, part time and casual,
    • Entitlement – 2 months (8 2/3 weeks) after 10 years,
    • 1 month (4 1/3 weeks) after each additional 5 years,
    • Pro rata entitlement after 5 years service, under some circumstances,*
    • Must be taken as leave or paid on termination of employment.

    *Pro-rata entitlement if employee:

    • Resigns as a result of illness, incapacity, domestic or other pressing necessity,
    • Is dismissed for any reason except serious and wilful misconduct, or
    • Dies.

    Definition of workers:

    • Any person employed whether on salary or wages, piecework, outwork, salesman, canvasser, collector, commercial traveller, insurance agent,
    • Person paid wholly or partly by commission.

    Continuous service not broken by:

    • Change in duties or position,
    • Transfer between companies within same group where employed by holding company or any one or more subsidiaries of that company and transfers to another company in group.

    Interruptions that do not break continuity:

    • Employer approved absences from work,
    • Parental leave – but break does not count as service,
    • If caused by the employer and the employee returns to employment within 2 months – period of interruption does not count as service,
    • No break in continuity if business or part transferred as a going concern.
    Type
    of Leave
    Break
    in Continuity
    Counts
    as Service
    Paid sick leave NO YES
    Sick leave without pay NO YES
    Paid annual leave NO YES
    Employee requested leave without pay NO NO
    Company directed leave without pay NO NO
    Long service leave NO YES
    Parental leave NO NO
    Workers compensation NO YES

    Payment of Leave

    Rate of Payment – the higher rate between:

    • Ordinary time rate of pay in pay period prior to commencing leave, or
    • Average weekly rate of pay earned during the previous 5 years.
    • Shift allowances, penalty rates, overtime payments, fares, travelling time and other like payments not included

    Bonuses and commissions:

    • Averaged over previous 12 months (or 5 years if 5 year average pay rate is used),
    • Is added to weekly rate to calculate leave payment,
    • If currently paid in excess of $144,000 per annum, bonuses are not included (this amount is indexed).

    Payment during leave may be either:

    • Paid in full on commencement of leave,
    • Paid at ordinary rate of pay at normal pay intervals, or
    • In any other way agreed between the employer and employee.

    If public holiday occurs during leave – additional day added if a normal working day for that employee.

    Commencement of leave:

    • The employer may direct leave to be taken by giving at least one (1) month’s notice,
    • May be postponed by agreement – may agree leave will be paid at current rate when leave is taken in the future,
    • Leave may also be taken in advance on agreement between the employer and the employee – must be not less than one (1) month.

    Taking the period of leave:

    • In one continuous period, or

    If employer and employee agree:

    • 2 separate periods – if leave owing is 2 months,
    • 2 or 3 periods – if leave owing is between 2 months and 19 1/2 weeks,
    • 2, 3 or 4 periods – if leave exceeds 19 1/2 weeks.
  • Workplace Surveillance

    Workplace Surveillance in NSW

    Generally, the Workplace Surveillance Act (NSW) 2005:

    • prohibits the surveillance by employers of their employees at work except where employees have been given notice, or where the employer has a covert surveillance authority.  The notice requirements are outlined below.  Covert surveillance authorities can only be issued by a Magistrate for the purpose of establishing whether or not an employee is involved in any unlawful activity at work;
    • applies to camera surveillance, computer surveillance (surveillance of the input, output or other use of a computer by an employee) and tracking surveillance (surveillance by means of an electronic device the primary purpose of which is to monitor or record geographical location or movement);
    • extends beyond the workplace to any place where an employee is working;
    • prohibits surveillance in a change room, toilet facility or shower or other bathing facility at a workplace;
    • restricts and regulates the blocking by employers of emails and Internet access of employees at work.  In particular it prevents employers from blocking access to emails or Internet sites because the content relates to industrial matters;
    • provides for the issue of covert surveillance authorities by Magistrates and regulates the carrying out of surveillance under a covert surveillance authority and the storage of covert surveillance records;
    • restricts the use and disclosure of covert surveillance records;
    • repeals and replaces the Workplace Video Surveillance Act 1998, which applied only to video (i.e. camera) surveillance.

    General notice requirements

    Written (or emailed) notice must be given at least 14 days prior to any surveillance commencing, indicating the kind of surveillance to be carried out (camera, computer or tracking), how the surveillance will be carried out, when the surveillance will start, whether the surveillance will be continuous or intermittent, and whether the surveillance will be for a specified limited period or ongoing.  For new employees notification must be given before they start work.

     Additional camera/video surveillance notice requirements

    Cameras used for the surveillance (or camera casings or other equipment that would generally indicate the presence of a camera) must be clearly visible in the place where the surveillance is taking place.  Signs must also notify people that they may be under surveillance in that place and must be clearly visible at each entrance to that place.  These mirror the requirements under the Workplace Video Surveillance Act 1998.

    Additional tracking surveillance notice requirements

    There must be a notice clearly visible on the vehicle or other thing that is being tracked, indicating that the vehicle or thing is the subject of tracking surveillance.

    Additional computer surveillance notice requirements

    Notification: Computer/Internet/email surveillance of an employee must not be carried out unless the surveillance is carried out in accordance with a policy of the employer on computer surveillance of employees at work.  The employee must be notified in advance of that policy in such a way that it is reasonable to assume that he or she is aware of and understands the policy.  The notification requirements are flexible so that employers can meet them in different ways.

    It is not true that the Act prevents or even significantly restricts employers from conducting email and internet surveillance.  All the Act requires is that notice of surveillance must be given.

    Monitoring and recording: It is also not true that all monitoring or recording of the use of a computer is ‘computer surveillance’.  The Act requires there to be ‘surveillance’, as that term is ordinarily understood.  Computer surveillance therefore does not cover normal business practices such as back-ups of hard drives, network performance monitoring, software licence monitoring, computer asset tracking, computer asset management or the normal saving of documents, because these are not normally considered to be “surveillance” activities. However, if back-ups, for instance, were to be used to conduct surveillance to facilitate the reading of somebody’s emails, that would need to be notified to employees, otherwise it would be considered to be covert surveillance.

    This is a common sense approach to the issue of computer surveillance.  There are obviously many functions of a computer that require the recording of activities.  Only surveillance activities, such as reading emails, or watching every web site a person goes to, or logging individual keystrokes, or covert observation of everything an employee does on their machine, require notification.

    Emails: The Act also places restrictions on the blocking of emails.  Employers will be required to give notice to an employee on any occasion when an e-mail message sent by or to the employee is blocked (that is, prevented from reaching its intended recipient).  Such notice is not required if the email has been blocked because it was spam, contained a virus, or would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive (for example, if it is pornography or involved criminal activity or was otherwise unlawful).  It will be unlawful for an employer to block an e-mail message, or access to a website:

    • otherwise than in accordance with the employer’s stated policy on e-mail and internet use; or
    • merely because the message or website includes information relating to industrial matters.

    Internet access: It is not the case that the provisions in relation to access to information relating to industrial matters will require employers to provide Internet access to employees.  Nor will the Act prevent employers from blocking all external Internet access, where previously they allowed such access, unless they do so to prevent their employees obtaining access to industrial information. There may be legitimate business reasons, such as cost considerations, for an employer to not have external Internet access. 

  • Transport Workers’ Union of New South Wales v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Limited

    Transport Workers’ Union of New South Wales v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Limited

    At first instance and appeal.

    The lessons to be taken from this series of proceedings are:

     1          Obtaining alternative work for a redundant contract carrier does not necessarily mean that such work will be regarded as “acceptable alternative work” for the purposes of the Redundancy Determination.

     2          Even where the alternative work is found to be “acceptable alternative work”, the Commission will still exercise its discretion in determining how much, if any, redundancy pay the contract carrier is entitled to receive.

     3          Without taking a nitpicking approach, the NSW Industrial Relations Commission will look at any significant differences in the terms and conditions being offered, compared to those previously enjoyed, in determining how much, if any, redundancy pay the contract carrier should receive.

  • Redundancy, Redeployment and Retrenchments – the 3 R’s.

    Redundancy, Redeployment and Retrenchments – the 3 R’s. 

    What do these terms all mean for your business and your workforce?  What are the entitlements which flow from redundancy?  Understanding what the legislation requires prior to the terminating of employees on the grounds of redundancy is critical.