ACTU pushes for 'portable leave' holiday overhaul
June 22 2016
Canberra Times

Employee leave entitlements should be paid into a blind personal account much like superannuation so that workers can carry it between contracts and employers, according to the nation's peak union body, the ACTU.   


Prospective employers would have no way of knowing of the accrued leave entitlement of job applicants.

The call for a radical reworking of the annual leave system to make it fully portable, comes as unions lament the casualisation of the workforce and press Malcolm Turnbull to reveal his plans for Australia's industrial relations system over the next term.


Speaking in December, Employment Minister Michaelia Cash promised that any government policy changes would be outlined ahead of the election.

"The government has said that if there is a good case for fair and sensible changes to the workplace relations framework, these will be clearly outlined and they will be taken to the Australian people and we will seek a mandate at the next election," she said.


"That is what we promised and we intend to keep that promise."

However, unions say the government has proceeded all the way through the best part of seven weeks of election campaigning without revealing its intentions.   

The ACTU are calling on Employment Minister Michaelia Cash and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to reveal the government's full industrial relations policy before the election.

"It has now been exactly six months since Senator Cash told the Australian people she would present the government's proposed changes to the workplace relations system before the federal election," said ACTU secretary, Dave Oliver.

"Two of the most dangerous reforms outlined in the government's Productivity Commission inquiry are to strip people of the protection afforded by unfair dismissal laws, and introduce a form of individual workplace contracts called enterprise agreements, straight out of the WorkChoices toolkit."      

Employers would be able to take leave with them to a new employer, under the plan.

Mr Oliver said the changing labour market meant there was a case for reform, but it should be directed at improving, rather than eroding, employee economic security as employees are asked to move more frequently between jobs.

"An innovation economy cannot be built on the back of increasingly insecure employment arrangements – the opposite approach is required," Mr Oliver said.

"In some parts of the economy like mining, more than one in three workers is already in casual, contract-based positions with no sick leave, annual leave or other protections.

"We need to make sure these workers have access to one of the key aspects of secure employment – leave entitlements".

He said the change could be designed to ensure employers did not inherit a new financial liability.

"Employers would still only be liable to pay entitlements accrued while an employee works for them," Mr Oliver said.

"If the government truly wants to tackle the biting issues in Australian workplaces, instead of harking back to the same old play book ... it should enhance an industrial relations system which gives employees fair wages, conditions, entitlements and job security."    

But employers are unlikely to embrace the idea of a Leave Bank. In its opening statement to a Senate committee inquiry into the area, the Australian Industry Group said even limiting portability to long service leave alone would be hugely expensive.

"A portable long service leave scheme across the workforce would cost Australian employers over $16 billion per annum," the group said.

"The scheme would be over four times as costly as the existing long service leave laws, which provide for long service leave in the traditional way."

One reason for this extra cost is that currently employers avoid paying long service leave for most employees because they leave before reaching eligibility – usually 10 years of continuous employment.

In May, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's James Pearson also flagged strong opposition declaring long service leave to be "an entitlement that's meant to come about if you show loyalty to an employer and you work with them for an extended period of time".

Grendel wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 12:04pm:


You're absolutely right.

If you take a closer look it's REALLY all about changing current Long Service Leave entitlements to Short Service Leave entitlements.

Absurd!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 12:17pm:


Yes it is.

Why?

They're trying to apply it to casuals AND to people who have worked UNDER 10 yrs.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 12:22pm:


I did!

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 12:20pm:


First of all, many casuals are already entitled to LSL (it doesn't mean they work less than 10 years before they get it, though).

Secondly, LSL starts accruing from the first day you start work with an employer.

It isn't paid out before 10 years, though (unless you resign after 7 years).

Nowhere in that article is anyone saying that it should be paid out any earlier.

You should read it again.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 12:36pm:


You said:

"They're trying to apply it to casuals AND to people who have worked UNDER 10 yrs."

What do you mean by that?

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 1:00pm:


You seem confused, Lisa.

You clearly stated:

"They're trying to apply it to casuals AND to people who have worked UNDER 10 yrs."

LSL starts accruing from the first day you start work.

So, it already applies to people who have worked under 10 years.

However, the employee can't take it until 10 years (in most cases).

It's got absolutely nothing to do with "changing current Long Service Leave entitlements to Short Service Leave entitlements."

And, as I said, LSL applies to casuals to in many instances.

As far as I'm aware, all casuals in WA are entitled to it (why shouldn't they be?).

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 1:14pm:

Incorrect.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 1:14pm:

And nobody is asking for that to change.