logo
Receive the latest mybusiness news
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Copyright © 2020 MOMENTUMMEDIA

Another FWC JobKeeper decision ends in employer’s favour

Maja Garaca Djurdjevic
Maja Garaca Djurdjevic
15 June 2020 2 minute readShare
FWC

The Fair Work Commission has once again reinforced an employer’s position on JobKeeper directions, deciding that it was “reasonable” for a recruitment business to reduce an employee’s hours by over 70 per cent.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has sided with the operator of a recruitment business for accounting and finance roles in Australia and New Zealand, after the employer issued two JobKeeper directions, slashing employee hours significantly in response to poor business performance.

Referring to the employer’s decision as “reasonable”, the FWC explained that the company has been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, with “significant losses” expected in June, resulting in negative cash flow.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Commissioner Platt explained that under JobKeeper amendments to the Fair Work Act, an employer that qualifies for the scheme and becomes entitled to JobKeeper payments may “require an employee not to work on a day they would usually work, work for a lesser period on a day, or work a reduced number of hours overall”.

According to the FWC, the employer in question followed the requirements, having met the consultation and notice period prescribed by the act. 

 

The case, which took place in early June but was only made public on Monday, saw an employee, part of the directorship team, challenge the employer’s decision on the grounds that he, as the sole income earner, would be unable to provide for his family following a 71.5 per cent pay reduction.

The employee was first issued a JobKeeper direction on 1 April, which saw his hours reduced to 65 per cent of the pre-pandemic arrangements. However, the applicant’s dispute with his employer was not about this direction.

The employer gave the applicant another direction on 3 June to reduce his hours of work to 12 per week, or a 71.5 per cent reduction to his pre-COVID-19 arrangements.

Aside from arguing that his current remuneration of $3,558.75 per month could not support his family, the senior employee also contended that 12 hours per week would not be sufficient to meet his role requirements.

SPONSORED CONTENT

 

While Commissioner Platt did accept that the financial impact of the second direction on the applicant is significant, he decided that the direction was reasonable within the meaning of section 789GK of the Fair Work Act 2009.

“Having determined that the ‘JobKeeper enabling direction’ is reasonable within the meaning of s.789GK of the act, I must dismiss the application,” the commissioner said. 

Last month, the FWC sided with an employer who ordered a retail worker to take paid annual leave on the basis of one full day’s leave per week for the next four months to safeguard the company’s “economic position”.

This provision has become one of the most contentious, giving rise to numerous FWC cases around what constitutes a reasonable excuse for refusing to take leave. 

While the amendments to the Fair Work Act require employees to consider an employer’s request to take leave, employers aren’t allowed to run down an employee’s leave balance below two weeks.

However, this differs for full-time and part-time workers.

Another FWC JobKeeper decision ends in employer’s favour
mybusiness logo
Maja Garaca Djurdjevic
Maja Garaca Djurdjevic

Maja Garaca Djurdjevic is the editor of My Business. 

Maja has a decade-long career in journalism across finance, business and politics. Now a well-versed reporter in the SME and accounting arena, prior to joining Momentum Media, Maja reported for several established news outlets in Southeast Europe, scrutinising key processes in post-conflict societies and enabling citizens to influence decision-making.

You can email Maja on [email protected] 

Leave a Comment

Latest poll

Which of the following stimulus measures has had the greatest impact on your business?