The SDA continues its campaign to protect Penalty Rates in the Retail, Fast Food and Warehousing Industries.
Employer groups are not relenting in their pursuit to abolish or reduce Sunday and Public Holiday rates as well as abolishing late night penalties.
A claim has been made to reduce a shift, or a days work to one hour.
The Federal Government has asked the Productivity Commission to inquire into Australia’s Workplace relations system.
An interim report has been released by the Productivity Commission recommending Sunday Rates convert to Saturday Rates.
If this goes ahead, some retail workers could lose up to $6,000 per year.
Have your say today by following the link www.saveourweekend.org.au and help us protect your entitlements.
It’s worth fighting for.
New policies are being introduced into many Australian workplaces which enable employees to be tested by their employer for drugs and alcohol.
Testing often involves employees being randomly tested for drugs and alcohol in their workplace using breath, saliva and urine-based testing devices.
The implementation of drug and alcohol testing policies in retail stores has the potential to impact on SDA members like you.
These policies, if introduced in retail stores, may result in you being subject to an unfair, unreasonable and potentially unlawful testing regime in your workplace.
If this is happening in your store, the SDA wants to know.
CONCERNED UNION MEMBERS
The SDA has been alerted by members concerned about the impact these new testing regimes may have on them.
Following up on our members’ concerns, and worried about the potential implications that these new policies could have for the rights of retail employees, the SDA is keen to hear from any members who may already be aﬀected by drug and alcohol testing regimes.
WHAT THE SDA SAYS ABOUT TESTING RETAIL WORKERS FOR DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
The SDA maintains that it is unreasonable, inappropriate and potentially unlawful to test retail workers for drugs and alcohol.
Recent decisions by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) reflect the SDA’s view that testing employees for drugs and alcohol should be confined to workplaces where workers are operating in high-risk, safety critical environments.
The performance of construction work and the operation of heavy machinery are roles that can be classified as high-risk or safety critical.
Workplace testing for drugs and alcohol is an intrusive procedure that should only be warranted where it is reasonable, appropriate and lawful.
Testing should only be considered to minimise risks that impairment, due to drug and alcohol misuse, may pose in a high-risk, safety critical work environment.
The SDA recognises that sometimes retail employees may be impaired at work due to misuse of drugs and alcohol, however, there are other ways of managing these incidents. There is no need for heavy-handed, intrusive and invasive testing regimes designed for high-risk work environments to apply to retail stores.
Workplace testing for drugs and alcohol is not warranted in a retail environment.
SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICIES IN RETAIL
The SDA has a number of serious concerns in relation to how drugs and alcohol policies may impact on our members:
Drug and alcohol policies have been developed for higher-risk worksites where heavy machinery is in operation, not for employees working in lower-risk retail stores where these high-risk elements are absent.
The SDA has not been provided with any evidence of safety issues or incidents in retail stores involving employees aﬀected by drugs and/or alcohol misuse.
Employees who are subject to these kinds of policies are often required to disclose private and personal health information, including medication that they have been prescribed by qualified medical practitioners, which is not relevant to their work.
Where testing of employees is undertaken, it is often not done appropriately and in line with best practice, that is by an independent, accredited testing agency.
Employees’ private information, including non-negative test results, could potentially be held by their employer, without the employee knowing if this information is secure.
Drug and alcohol testing policies are often introduced under the guise of promoting employee health, safety and wellbeing, however, they can be still applied by a company in a punitive way, which ultimately may result in an employee losing their job.
WE NEED YOUR HELP
The SDA is very concerned about the potential implications that drug and alcohol testing policies could have for the workplace rights of retail employees.
The SDA is keen to hear from members who may already be subject to testing for drugs and alcohol in their workplace.
CONTACT THE SDA
If you are aware of alcohol and drug testing being conducted in your workplace please contact the SDA on 6331 8166.
The majority of modern Australian families rely on two incomes to meet their financial obligations, however, workplace laws and practices have not kept pace with the needs of modern working families.
The lack of flexible, supportive workplaces for working parents is why employees consistently rate balancing work and family as one of their most important workplace issues.
This is particularly so for parents returning to work from parental leave and is one of the reasons Australia has one of the lowest participation rates for mothers in the OECD.
The recent Australian Human Rights Commission national inquiry into pregnancy and return to work discrimination showed that one in two mothers are discriminated against at work and of those, around one quarter are forced to resign.
Under current laws, parents may request flexible work arrangements to balance their caring responsibilities, but there is no obligation on employers to demonstrate they have tried to accommodate an employee’s request and employees have no right of appeal if an employer unreasonably refuses their request. The ACTU is seeking to improve workers rights in this area.
Eleanor was a Department Manager at a large supermarket retailer.
When she returned from parental leave, she was told she could not return to her job
on a part-time basis. Eleanor had to choose between returning to her role full-time (leaving her child in full-time care) or accepting a casual sales assistant position.
Like Eleanor, many workers are forced to resign or accept lower pay, lower status and insecure jobs after taking a period of parental leave.
A CLAIM FOR IMPROVEMENTS
The ACTU has lodged a claim in the Fair Work Commission for a clause in all awards to:
- Create a right for parents to return to their pre-parental leave position part time or on reduced hours which employers may only refuse on serious countervailing business grounds;
- Provide employees with an avenue of appeal if their employer unreasonably refuses the request to return to work on part time or reduced hours;
- Create a provision where, if an employer is unable to accommodate an employee’s return to their pre-parental leave position part time, they may accommodate the request in a suitable alternative position of similar status and pay;
- Entitle parents who have returned part time to go back to the position and work arrangements they held prior to taking parental leave two years from the birth or adoption of their child;
- Entitle employees to two days paid leave to attend appointments associated with pregnancy, adoption or permanent care
Some employers have taken technical objections to this claim, which must be dealt with by the Fair Work Commission before the merit of the case can be argued. We will keep you informed of progress on this important issue.
Over the past few months, we have been dealing with some issues surrounding disability discrimination in workplaces throughout the State.
Disability comes in many forms, and the major concerns facing our members in this area are that of illness discrimination both permanent and temporary.
Late last year, we received a call from a young member who was epileptic and had suﬀered a seizure at work.
She was concerned for her safety as she worked in an isolated area in a supermarket at night. Also, due to her seizure she was unable to drive and her shift ended at midnight, which meant that she was dependant on her mother to pick her up and drive her home after work.
Her mother worked full-time, which also made things diﬃcult.
Our member’s GP certified that her medical condition required her to have early nights and limited stress. This meant that her working hours were not conducive to managing her illness.
The SDA sought advice from Epilepsy Tasmania in order for us to better understand our member’s condition, and we were then able to assist this member despite resistance from the company concerned.
A short time later, we were contacted by another member who was also an epileptic, had also experienced a seizure at work and had suﬀered a trauma to his head as a result. He had been taken to hospital for treatment.
The seizure had been provoked by a change to his medication and he was provided with a certificate confirming this.
When our member returned to work, he was advised that he could no longer retain the position he had held prior to his seizure. The company claimed that he was a Workplace Health and Safety risk.
We made contact with the company who refused all attempts by us to obtain a satisfactory outcome for our member and to educate management and staﬀ on epilepsy and correct procedures in the event of another seizure.
Completely unacceptable comments made by both companies with relation to our members’ illness disability included:
- “We wouldn’t have employed her if we had ”
- “He bled everywhere and wasn’t even sorry that other people had to clean it ”
- “He wasn’t sorry that he caused such a disruption to the ”
Despite our attempts to assist our member, the company stood fast on its decision to move him.
The SDA National Oﬃce became involved and evidence was gained from Epilepsy Tasmania and the Anti- Discrimination Commission.
The company was eventually left with no alternative but to concede.
Our member still remains in his original position, and Epilepsy Tasmania was commissioned to provide a training session in the workplace to educate and avoid discrimination from management and other employees in the future.
There had also been reports from Delegates stating that strobing lights were not being attended to in workplaces which can, in some cases, contribute to epileptic seizures, despite these matters being brought to the attention of management.
EDUCATION IS THE KEY
As a result of these issues, we included a session at the Delegates conference in May where Katie Biddlestone, National Women’s and Industrial Oﬃcer, spoke about discrimination, and Bronwyn Stirkul, Education and Training Co-ordinator for Epilepsy Tasmania educated all Delegates on epilepsy in general, discrimination, the law surrounding discrimination and the services they can provide to workplaces.
Shortly after the conference, we were contacted by another member who had also experienced discrimination in her workplace as a result of epilepsy.
This time her hours had been reduced, putting stress on her and her family.
Once again the company stood fast on its decision, but this time we were better equipped to deal with the situation and the matter was rectified in a timely manner, reducing emotional stress to our member.
Fortunately, not all companies are the same and we have also been advised by one of our Delegates from a Kmart store as to the positive treatment given to her when she advised her store manager of her epileptic condition.
Our member was accommodated with shifts that would suit her and the store manager assisted her with travel to and from work as she was restricted from driving.
Companies have an obligation by law to provide a healthy and safe workplace.
If anyone is experiencing discrimination due to a disability, illness or any other reason, please contact us immediately.
For further information or advice on epilepsy, we encourage members to phone Epilepsy Tasmania on
1300 852 853 or 6344 6881 or visit www.epilepsytasmania.org.au.