ACTU submission to Productivity Commission urges review of workplace relations

Date
    April 1, 2015
    Canberra Times

Employers would be legally required to give reasons within 21 days for why they could not allow female workers to reduce their hours under a proposal by the peak union organisation to the Australian Productivity Commission review of industrial relations laws.   

The ACTU submission to the review of the workplace relations system also calls for independent and freelance workers to be given the same rights to collective bargaining as full-time workers.

"The desirable reform is one which permits single worker contractors who do not subcontract their work to gain proper worker protections and rights, including the right to bargain alongside other workers collectively with those who engage them," the submission says.

"At the very least, the current sham contracting provisions require substantial amendment to sheet home responsibility to employers more effectively."


The ACTU wants employers to be required to provide reasons within 21 days for their rejection of an employee's reasonable request to work reduced hours in an equivalent position.

It has already flagged it will urge the Productivity Commission to consider the introduction of portable work entitlements.

The submission also argues for penalty rates to be protected, fairer redundancy provisions and for the minimum wage to be strengthened.    

ACTU secretary Dave Oliver said the Productivity Commission review of the industrial relations system is a federal government "Trojan horse to deliver WorkChoices Mark 2", a reference to the Howard government's system of individual workplace agreements.      

Mr Oliver said there needed to be a provision in fair work laws to allow employees to convert a permanent position to a part-time role.

"The idea of the casual worker was to fill a gap," he said. "We now have the situation of a woman who has worked as a receptionist on same three days a week for 15 years who is employed as a casual," Mr Oliver said.

"Permanent jobs are being replaced by casuals and casual employment is being abused."

Mr Oliver said 40 per cent of workers were employed in insecure jobs.   

The ACTU submission outlines the need for better entitlements for casual workers.

It says four out of five mothers that return to work from maternity leave require flexible work arrangements to do so.

"[I]f women's participation in the paid labour market increased by 6% from current levels, GDP could increase by as much as $25 billion," the submission says.

"Whilst significant attention has been given to the provision of paid parental leave and affordable, accessible childcare, employment regulation and workplace practices have not kept pace with the changes in modern working families and in the labourforce generally."

The Fair Work Act places no obligation on employers to reasonably accommodate a request for more flexible hours.

"We are of the view that these limits on the regulatory framework have meant that it has been ineffective in driving the change in attitudes and practice that is required in order to lift the participation of mothers in the workforce," the ACTU submission says.

"Australian employers generally offer a very narrow range of alternative options for employees wanting to stay in the jobs they held prior to needing to balance work and family commitments."

The ACTU suggests the Fair Work Act should be amended "to require employers to reasonably accommodate employees' requests for flexible work arrangements or to extend a period of parental leave".

Employees would also be given a right to appeal an unreasonable refusal of their request for more flexible hours.

"Employers would be legally required to give reasons within 21 days for why they could not allow female workers to reduce their hours under a proposal by the peak union organisation to the Australian Productivity Commission review of industrial relations laws."

For what reason, Crook - and are they expecting full salary to continue as well?  What about the mythical 'wage gap' in that case?

Sounds like another Trojan Horse to get women paid at a higher rate to me.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2015 at 8:48am:



No, it's just about reducing the hours (to care for children after maternity leave).

They'll only be paid for the hours they work, and the rate won't change.

Quote:

This is discriminatory IMO. Why only women? Such a right should be available to everyone.

Bam wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2015 at 9:31am:



I agree.

It should apply to any parent.

Their website doesn't actually say 'women', though:

"Create a new right for employees to return to work in their existing role on a part-time basis following parental leave".

http://www.actu.org.au/actu-media/media-releases/2015/unions-urge-pc-inquiry-to-...

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2015 at 9:40am:

No. It should be available to EVERYONE.

To assert that it can only be available to "any parent" has an implicit assumption that only parents look after children. This is wrong because it discriminates against guardians - non-parents with responsibility for children.

For that matter, limiting it to "parents" also has the implicit assumption that only parents have legitimate reasons to seek reductions in working hours. Again, this is wrong.

The proper test is not whether the employee is a woman, or a parent, or a member of any other select group, but whether their need is reasonable. Whether they are caring for someone, or seeking time to deal with their own health, or even furthering their education - as long as their need is just, they should not be denied.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2015 at 2:20pm:



No, they just want the time off.

They want to reduce their hours for a few weeks/months once they come off parental leave.

They aren't asking to be paid for the hours that aren't worked.

The salary is just paid at a pro rata rate.  Happens all the time.

Plus, the employer will (most likely) already have casuals and part-timers on the payroll - no extra costs involved.