EMPLOYER and industry groups are warning employers the State Government’s new labour relations regime will have effects reaching far beyond the increased labour costs associated with the abolition of workplace agreements.
EMPLOYER and industry groups are warning employers the State Government’s new labour relations regime will have effects reaching far beyond the increased labour costs associated with the abolition of workplace agreements.
Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA director of employee relations Bruce Williams said it would be some time before we see the full effects of the legislation.
“In six to 12 to 18 months we will see a number of provisions that will start to hurt business,” he said.
“The broadening of the definition of an industrial matter and the narrowing of the appeals in the industrial court will take some time to see the full effect.” Jackson McDonald workplace relations group partner Greg Smith said employers needed to understand what the changes would mean for them.
“In reality, this bill takes the control for the terms of conditions of employment out of the workplace and into the hands of the WA Industrial Relations Commission,” he said.
“In the short term the immediate effects are the increased right of entry for unions, the increased interventionist role the WA Industrial Relations Commission will be able to play, and an increase in the cost of doing business with direct wage costs and administration costs.”
Mr Smith said employers should be aware of longer-term implications.
“What has happened is that now the general concept of OHS is an industrial matter and can be dealt with by the WA Industrial Commission unless its been referred to a health and safety magistrate,” he said.
“Previously, occupational health and safety matters had to be dealt with by a health and safety magistrate. This means there is more scope for conciliation ... and the com-mission can now make orders to the award.”
Mr Smith said that, under the new laws, unions could enter a workplace without notice to inspect occupational health and safety operations.
Mr Williams said employers needed to be mindful of the rights of unions to enter the workplace.
“Unions can inspect records of employees not covered by an award and earning under $45,000,” he said.
As for the abolition of workplace agreements, it seems employers are left with limited options. Among these are employer-employee agreements, Australian workplace agreements, collective non-union certified agreements, or working with the relevant award.
Workplace Professionals managing director Tony Thompson said he favoured the collective non-union certified agreement.
“We’re not rapped with the EEAs, not because of the document, but because of the support of the legislation,” he said. “If you have one person wanting an EBA then EEAs are off the table to all new staff.”
Mr Thompson said the Federal agreement system was better for employers.
“Australian workplace agreements take them out of the State system and you can cash in annual leave and sick leave, and there is significant flexibility,” he said.
“But there are disadvantages. You have to offer your prospective employees your AWA for five days to review before you can ask them to sign.
“The non-union agreements, while not as flexible, allow a majority of employees to decided the agreement.
“You need 50 per cent plus one employee, and any new staff member that joins is bound by that agreement.”
Both of these systems are measured against a ‘no disadvantage’ test.
Mr Williams said the WA Industrial Commission’s application of the ‘no disadvantage’ test to EEAs would be crucial.
Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA director of employee relations Bruce Williams said it would be some time before we see the full effects of the legislation.
“In six to 12 to 18 months we will see a number of provisions that will start to hurt business,” he said.
“The broadening of the definition of an industrial matter and the narrowing of the appeals in the industrial court will take some time to see the full effect.” Jackson McDonald workplace relations group partner Greg Smith said employers needed to understand what the changes would mean for them.
“In reality, this bill takes the control for the terms of conditions of employment out of the workplace and into the hands of the WA Industrial Relations Commission,” he said.
“In the short term the immediate effects are the increased right of entry for unions, the increased interventionist role the WA Industrial Relations Commission will be able to play, and an increase in the cost of doing business with direct wage costs and administration costs.”
Mr Smith said employers should be aware of longer-term implications.
“What has happened is that now the general concept of OHS is an industrial matter and can be dealt with by the WA Industrial Commission unless its been referred to a health and safety magistrate,” he said.
“Previously, occupational health and safety matters had to be dealt with by a health and safety magistrate. This means there is more scope for conciliation ... and the com-mission can now make orders to the award.”
Mr Smith said that, under the new laws, unions could enter a workplace without notice to inspect occupational health and safety operations.
Mr Williams said employers needed to be mindful of the rights of unions to enter the workplace.
“Unions can inspect records of employees not covered by an award and earning under $45,000,” he said.
As for the abolition of workplace agreements, it seems employers are left with limited options. Among these are employer-employee agreements, Australian workplace agreements, collective non-union certified agreements, or working with the relevant award.
Workplace Professionals managing director Tony Thompson said he favoured the collective non-union certified agreement.
“We’re not rapped with the EEAs, not because of the document, but because of the support of the legislation,” he said. “If you have one person wanting an EBA then EEAs are off the table to all new staff.”
Mr Thompson said the Federal agreement system was better for employers.
“Australian workplace agreements take them out of the State system and you can cash in annual leave and sick leave, and there is significant flexibility,” he said.
“But there are disadvantages. You have to offer your prospective employees your AWA for five days to review before you can ask them to sign.
“The non-union agreements, while not as flexible, allow a majority of employees to decided the agreement.
“You need 50 per cent plus one employee, and any new staff member that joins is bound by that agreement.”
Both of these systems are measured against a ‘no disadvantage’ test.
Mr Williams said the WA Industrial Commission’s application of the ‘no disadvantage’ test to EEAs would be crucial.
