The adverse action provision of the Fair Work Act is relatively new on the industrial relations landscape, and a new decision has put significant qualifications around this clause of the legislation.
.jpg){kind=spacer}
The adverse action provision of the Fair Work Act is relatively new on the industrial relations landscape, and a new decision has put significant qualifications around this clause of the legislation.
In Brown v Premier Pet t/a Bay Fish [2012] FMCA 1089, the Federal Magistrates’ Court ordered the employer to reinstate the worker they had dismissed for refusing to work compulsory rostered overtime. The request was that the employee work three hours additional overtime, outside of normal trading hours, once every seven to 10 non-trading days. In this particular case, the employee was successful in claiming that he experienced adverse action as a result of exercising his workplace right to refuse to work the stipulated overtime.
Under the Fair Work Act, employers may require workers to work ‘reasonable’ additional hours, though exactly what exactly would constitute a reasonable request has been left largely for case law to determine.
In this case, the employee was given 14 days’ notice of a proposed new roster. While the employee was not unwilling to work some overtime and already did so, he was only in a position to work a 38 hour a week job, with only occasional overtime. He was prepared to work some weekends in exchange for time in lieu (as authorised by the applicable award), but after negotiating the employer and employee were unable to reach agreement. Additionally, the worker was a bankrupt and had concerns about the impact that the additional work might have on his liability to make contributions to his bankrupt estate.
As a result the court agreed that the worker refused to work additional overtime on legitimate grounds. According to case commentary by Andrew Tobin, partner at Hopgood Ganim, the decision yields important lessons for employers.
Key points
