People Smartz Blog

When we first started People Smartz, our aim was to assist companies who understood that people are the most important asset a company can have.

Our aim has never changed, we believe that it is people who can drive a business to success and have not moved from this belief.

This means our aim has always been to work with businesses to assist them to build the individual and collective capability within a business - the aim being what we call "Mutual Success".

Last week we met with one of our long term clients.  They are a small company of 20 employees with offices in two states.

This company has strong leadership, some good managers and some good people - A recently completed employee survey assessed their employee satisfaction at 73%!

But it was the items that the survey raised that interested us - what they were doing well, and what they could do better.  

What the survey enabled us to highlight was the differences in management and leadership between the states.  Where one state was strong in communication, the other was not, where one state was strong in sharing company performance, the other was not etc.

This has enabled us to see identify the individual strengths of the managers and use them in our planning to assist the company in moving forward to "mutual success".  By developing a plan utilsing the individual competencies each manager is displaying, we can use those strengths to develop weak areas in another area of the company, or even in another individual.

Building on what you already have in an organisation can sometimes have a very positive effect on a company.  By identifying the strengths you have in managers and staff, and utilising them to build the business you are developing not only the company but building responsibility, accountability and ownership - all positives for any company!

If you would like assistance in developing a plan to improve the performance of your company and encourage "mutual success"  - Contact Us Today!

It appears that we are finally starting to see some real pressure being put on the Opposition to provide a real policy difference between the parties in relation to industrial relations.  Even Heather Ridout, once a supporter of the Fair Work Act, has recognised the need for debate in this area

And it is about time too!

The Fair Work Act does not balance the playing field in industrial relations and is providing disincentives to small and medium sized businesses.  It is complex and a minefield for players in the game who do not have the time, resources or knowledge to manage it.

At People Smartz we work predominantly with businesses who do not have a Human Resources team, they do not have experience in interpreting the awards and they do not have the time to understand all the complex points of the different areas of the law.

Only last week I conducted a review for a small business person.  His business was operating well and, as far as he was concerned, was compliant with the award and legislation.  However, by the time the National Employment Standards, the Modern Awards, the transitional arrangements and the difference between state and federal jurisdiction had been explained to him his comment was "how am I supposed to keep up and understand all this!"

This particular gentlemen was not working with his staff compliantly and needs to make changes to his employment arrangements.  Due to the changes between state and federal coverage, he had missed several important points of coverage, because of transitional arrangements he had missed increases in minimum wages, because of a lack of understanding of the National Employment Standards he was underpaying staff in accordance with the "Better Off Overall Test".

He is not alone.  We see small and medium sized businesses every week who are in some way not meeting the minimum entitlements under this legislation.  And it is important to note that this is because they don't understand the requirements on them.

Over 80% of those employed in Australian businesses are employed within businesses that have less than 5 staff. These businesses are the real engine room of Australia's economy and they are woefully ignored by an industrial relations system which is not designed to help or support them. Nor have we seen any real effort to provide them with the education they so badly need. 

Since 2005 we have had two pieces of legislation that have led the industrial relations debate - Work Choices and the Fair Work Act.  In my opinion, each of them has taken the debate to the extreme left or right in an effort to either decrease or increase the power of unions within the Australian political and industrial relations arena.  Their underlying aim has not been the development of any "fair and equitable" system, nor have they been designed with the primary aim of benefiting the Australian Economy. Their real and underlying focus was on union power.

It is time that we moved this debate along, the opposition needs to move on and start challenging the inadequate aspects of the current legislation and bring the discussion back to developing a system designed for all Australians and that can support all Australian businesses.  The Opposition needs to stop treating this as a "no-go" area, forget Work Choices and begin encouraging real debate in this area.

It is only through real debate that we will see change - thank god, we are beginning to see some movement in that direction.  
 

A recent case before Fair Work Australia has emphasied the importance of employers having a fair and published process in regards to handling disciplinary problems with staff.

The case (Michelle de Leon v Spice Temple Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 3497, revolved around the "abrupt and quite unprofessional" manner with which an employee had dealt with a high profile customer.

As a result of a complaint from the customer, the employee was dismissed from her position.

The Deputy President of FWA was very critical of the employer because:

• the decision to dismiss the employee was made prior to meeting with her to discuss the issue.  In the words of the Deputy President, she was effectively "ambushed" by the allegation and was given no opportunity to respond to the allegation.
• she was not given the opportunity to have a support person present at the meeting (the employer did suggest that the staff members immediate supervisor was present to support her but this was not accepted).
• she was not given any written warning about her conduct nor was she given a letter of dismissal stating the reasons for the dismissal.

The unions last week began a push to enable casual employees to transfer to permanent employment.

The plan proposed by the unions would require employers to make casual employees permanent after 12 months.  There was also some discussion in the plan about governments “favoring’ companies with majority permanent workforces in the awarding of contracts. The unions believe such an approach is necessary to tackle “precarious employment”.

Business groups were not happy (as you would expect) claiming that such moves would drive companies “to the wall”.  They called the approach a “misguided view of the jobs sector” and said “it doesn’t relate to the modern-day Australian economy, which is dominated by the services sector”.

We gave had such rules before.  In 2004/5, rules where “regular and systematic” casual employees were allowed to request part time employment were introduced.  We had a similar “hue and cry” then!

From my experience, very few casual employees wanted to take up the opportunity.  Australian workers generally understand the difference between casual and permanent employment and are often loath to let go of the 20-25% loading for casual employment. 

Casual employment is designed to allow an employer to handle the peaks and troughs of their business.  Casual employment contains no guarantees and no expectations of employment beyond the end of the current shift.  In its purest form, it is “call and come to work”.  Because there are no guarantees or expectations of future work, a loading is paid to compensate for the lack of annual leave, sick leave etc etc.

But the needs of the business often necessitate rostering casuals for work, sometimes weeks in advance.  Overtime, this leads to businesses adopting rostering systems which virtually “guarantee” work to a casual.  Basically, the employment becomes “regular and systematic”.  When work becomes regular and systematic, the question needs to be asked – are they really casuals?

This is the point behind the unions push.  If a person is employed as a casual but doing regular shifts and systematic work then they should receive the entitlements of permanent employees because in practice, that is what they are.

Whether you agree or don’t agree with the unions, there are many advantages to creating a permanent workforce in your business.  A guarantee of employment encourages commitment and develops “ownership” in the role.  Accountability is easier to assign to someone whose employment is guaranteed and your ability to develop consistent behaviors’ is improved.

Many businesses I deal with argue that putting on permanent staff “takes away the flexibility” from their business.  For some businesses this may be true, and for them, I would not recommend such a measure providing the employment they were offering was not “regular and systematic”.

Another argument I often hear is that it is too expensive to have permanent employees.  Well, the fact is that in the long run it is probably cheaper!  While you need to accrue leave etc, you will not be paying the 20-25% loading and your productivity will most probably improve.  The reality is that it often has nothing to do with “cost” but more to do with “ease” – it is easier to pay everything out with a 20-25% loading than have to “accrue”.

The ease of “getting rid” of casual employees is also stated as a reason for keeping people as casuals.  However, the reality is that if they are regular and systematic in their employment, the unfair dismissal rules will most probably apply – the end result being that this argument is flawed in its execution!

For any workforce, permanent or casual, I recommend you sit down and work out the number of hours being worked in your business.  Is there a constant number of hours worked in each week?  This is the first step in working out whether you can (or should) put permanent employees in place.  If you can, casual employees can then be used to handle the peaks and troughs – not for the constant hours.

If you must have casuals in your business, then think seriously about how you work with them.  Do you roster them in a regular and systematic way?  Do you need to do this?  Can you do it any other way?  In other words – do some workforce planning!

Would you like to know more about how you can improve the use of people in your business?  At People Smartz, we assist businesses in planning for the most efficient and effective use of their workforce.  We work with you to ensure that you are using your most important resource in a manner which leads to success for you, your business and your team.   Call us today!   

One of the things small business clients often talk to me about is the time it takes to process their superannuation obligations, particularly when they have a number of employees with different superannuation funds.

Well finally we have seen the establishment of a clearing house to help small businesses meet their obligations!

A free (and optional) super clearing house service is now available to small businesses with less than 20 employees to help them meet their super guarantee obligations.

The Small Business Superannuation Clearing House is administered by Medicare Australia and lets employers pay their super contributions to a single location in one simple electronic transaction.

Small businesses that register to use the service will have their super guarantee obligation discharged, as long as all of the following apply:

• they pay the correct amount;
• they pay by the super payment cut-off date;
• the payment is accepted by the clearing house; and
• the payment is not rejected by the super fund.

Employers who receive an employee's choice of fund nomination will have their choice obligation discharged if they pass the information to the clearing house within 21 days of receiving the choice of fund nomination.

Small businesses can register online for the service by:

• visiting the Medicare website at www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/super; or
• phoning Medicare Australia on 1300 660 048.

Recently, Australia's newspapers have been full of the story regarding the Sexual Harassment claim against the CEO of David Jones.

These stories have highlighted the risks businesses have regarding harassment in the workplace. However, the purpose of this posting is not to discuss the David Jones case - it is to highlight the fact that we are now approaching that time of year where such complaints increase.

Yes it nearing the end of the year.  We are entering party season - a great time to unwind, rub shoulders with workmates etc.  This can be a fun time!

But end of year parties have a very serious side as many of these antics lead to "regrets" after.

Recent research in Australia found that 70% of people believed that hitting the booze led to a more "personal" feeling amongst staff.  Nearly a quarter of females interviewed admitted that their boss had made a pass at them at an office party. 

Such behaviours can present many problems for businesses, particularly if the "antics" involved lead to a complaint from a member of staff regarding the behaviour of another.

It would be easy to say "no office party" or "its too risky", but sometimes the advantages of holding the party far outweigh the negatives.  The decision to have or not have one is one for the business alone. 

I would recommend a level headed approach to this years Xmas party - making sure the party is well planned and your staff are aware of the required behaviours before hand.  This way you can have the fun while managing the risk!

To help you plan for your businesses party, download our Christmas Checklist today.

Recently, the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations said that the number of unfair dismissal claims under the Fair Work Act had increased.

She said the number of claims in the 12 months to June this year was 10,751.  This is significantly up from 2008-2009 where a total of 7,994 claims were made.

If you like talking in terms of percentages, this is a 35% increase in claims.

Significantly, she also said that “83% of claims” were resolved through conciliation.  She used this as evidence that the new system was “working”. 

I am seeing clients weekly who are becoming more concerned about the effects of the new laws and the ease of making an unfair dismissal claim. For them, the figure of “83% of claims” is evidence that the system is “not working”.

They are hearing stories of businesses paying “go away” money to make these claims go away – regardless of the validity of the claim.

Now, there has to be some protection for employees against unfair dismissal – I don’t think anyone will argue with me on that. Laws of the type we have now work better in the corporate environment, and largely that is where their designed for use (I will not argue whether they “work” in the corporate environment – that is another issue).  In smaller businesses however, a different set of circumstances are at work.

First, SME’s normally do not have access to HR Teams or the systems in place to manage problem situations.  Normally they are handled from gut instinct or based on a small amount of experience.   Often that experience is under previous industrial relations regimes and not necessarily relevant to the current circumstances.

Second - Without having the systems in place, the business owner and the employee are often directly affected by the complexity of the new laws.  The majority of small business owners I have spoken to have never heard of the “Fair Dismissal Code for Small Businesses” and have very little idea about the steps they need to take to protect their business – and themselves.

I regularly receive calls from businesses that are having problems with employees.  Because they do not have formal processes in place, they are concerned that their actions may result in a complaint or claim against them.  The regularity of these calls is increasing.  Another example of this is the increasing number of businesses approaching People Smartz to request assistance with putting in place systems to protect their business – this has increased by 22% since this time last year!

For the first time ever, we are also receiving calls from employees – asking how they go about making a claim!  Over the last month, we have received 12 such calls with another 5 queries through our website. All except one have revolved around perceived unfair treatment in the workplace or underpaid entitlements.

While this is good for our business, the fact is that small to medium sized businesses need education, a concentration on developing fair and equitable systems and assistance with developing productive and efficient workforces.  They do not need increased complexity, aggressive regulation and regulatory systems that encourage claims regardless of their validity. 

However, this is the regime that we have.  The Work Choices legislation has resulted in a polarization of the debate about the industrial relations system and we are unlikely to see a constructive debate about the system for awhile yet.  As a result, businesses need to work to develop the needed systems and infrastructure to ensure they are compliant.

People Smartz is ready to assist small to medium sized businesses to ensure they are compliant and protected.  We offer a number of services designed to review and inform businesses of the areas of risk in regards to the new legislation.  Why not start by booking your Human Resources Review of Your Business today!

 

 

 

In my travels around businesses, I speak to a lot of businesses owners.  One of the most frequent responses I get when speaking to them about the new industrial relations laws is the title of this blog.

“We don’t need to worry about that” is a refrain that I hear quite alot.  The basic premise is that if they haven’t had a problem before, then they will not have one in the future.

As far as the industrial relations laws are concerned, thinking this way is not a smart move for business owners and managers.  Over the last couple of months, I have seen an increase in the number of businesses calling me for assistance after having received a letter from the Fair Work Ombudsman regarding a complaint from an employee.  On nearly every occasion, the business concerned had, until now, a belief that “We don’t have to worry about that”.

In a recent article, Judith Radisich from the Council of Small Businesses of Australia, in a response to a survey of small businesses said the following: “I am surprised that a higher proportion of small business respondents did not report complying with IR and OH&S laws takes up a higher proportion of their “people” time.  Perhaps the main reason for this is that survey respondents don’t spend much time on compliance because the laws are simply too complex and virtually impossible to get on top of for most small business owners”.  So, yet another reason for businesses to say “We don’t have to worry about that” – it is simply too hard to say otherwise!

One business I am currently working with has received two complaint letters and has been requested to provide payroll records.  The danger for this company is that the complaint, if found correct, could result in a large amount of back pay being ordered that the company cannot afford to pay.  Now the owners are not bad people, they have not set out to deliberately underpay their staff and are quite distressed that they may have.  But even they admit that they thought “We don’t have to worry about that”.

The fact is that we have recently gone through one of the biggest revamps of industrial relations in a long time.  When this is combined with an active workplace ombudsman (The Fair Work Ombudsman) with the power to order back pay, award fines and commence prosecutions then you have to wonder whether businesses can really afford to say “We don’t need to worry about that”.

Many thanks for this story to the HR Coach Network - it is a timely reminder for employers regarding bullying in the workplace and the possible effects of not having the appropriate measures in place.

A recent tragic case has highlighted the need for employers of all sizes to be proactive and vigilant in respect to bullying behaviour within the workplace.

The case involved the death of a 19-year-old cafe employee in Victoria, who committed suicide after more than 12 months of bullying at the hands of her co-workers. It was found that the victim was subject to constant taunting, criticism, name-calling and on at least one occasion had sauce poured over her clothes and hair.

In what is largely being regarded as a turning point for workplace bullying cases, the business was fined $220,000 for failing to provide and maintain a safe workplace and failing to adequately train and supervise its employees.

The presiding Magistrate said that the company had “tacitly approved” of the bullying behaviour. One of the company directors was personally convicted and issued a fine of $30,000. In a further landmark decision that has seen the liability for bullying extend beyond businesses to individual employees, three of the victim’s co-workers were convicted and fined a total of $85,000.

Combined with a recent survey indicating that nearly 1 in 5 workers has been subject to bullying, the case highlights the importance of employers and employees alike taking measures to prevent and eliminate bullying in their workplaces.