Senate debates

Thursday, 19 March 2009

Fair Work Bill 2008

In Committee

1:51 am

Photo of Rachel SiewertRachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We very strongly disagree with the government. We do not believe that it is fair in any way, shape or form that relying on oral warnings is considered enough. We do not believe it is fair. Having said that, I can tell what the feeling of the chamber is. I would like to put on record that we normally would have called a division on this—this is how strongly we feel about it—but, given the lateness of the hour, we will not. I just wanted to put that on record.

Question negatived.

I move Greens amendment (3) on sheet 5746:

(3)    Clause 384, page 320 (line 30) to page 321 (line 21), omit subclause (2).

We are also concerned with unfair dismissal protections as they relate to the provision of transferring employees—that is, employees who transfer from an old employer to a new employer under the transfer of business provisions. The bill provides that the new employer can decide whether or not to recognise the employee’s service for the purposes of unfair dismissal protection. We cannot support this position. It could lead to a situation where an employee has worked for an employer for five, 10 or 20 years perfectly satisfactorily then, doing the exact same job, have their employment terminated at will during the next six to 12 months.

During the Senate inquiry we heard evidence about that practice in the aged-care industry. There have been a number of stories of how, when aged-care centres are sold, the accrued entitlements of the employees are calculated into the sale price and then employees are taken on initially and then dismissed. This is an unacceptable practice. We also believe that the period of time an employee may work for an employer as a casual should count towards the employee’s period of employment. The minimum employment period is to enable the employer to assess the employee. A period of casual work definitely serves that purpose.

We believe this amendment deals with a hole in the unfair dismissal provisions, and there are real examples of where this hole has been abused. I have heard of numerous examples such as the aged-care example. There have been several examples in Victoria. We urge the government to act to ensure that this sort of thing cannot happen and that employees’ entitlements are protected.

Comments

No comments