1300 366 441 for a free first interview
Ask about our No Win No Fee OR Expenses fee policy
Published: 11 September 2017
Author: Mark Comito
The Federal Parliament last week passed tougher laws to protect vulnerable workers, mainly from exploitation by franchise chains.
The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 follows in the wake of extensive media investigations by Fairfax Media and the ABC into the underpayment and exploitation of workers by leading firms such as 7-Eleven, Caltex and Domino’s Pizza.
While the new legislation is welcome, its effectiveness in curbing wage exploitation will have to await specific cases coming to court. Of particular concern is the potential wriggle room the laws allow for parent franchisor firms to deny the degree of influence or control they have over a subsidiary franchisee’s operations.
The main features of the new legislation are:
An employer’s conduct will be deemed a serious contravention if it is deliberate and part of a systematic pattern of conduct relating to one or more other persons such as employees (s.557A).
In determining what is a serious contravention, a court will consider the number of breaches committed and over what period, the number of people affected by the employer’s obligation to keep proper pay records and give payslips; and whether the employer failed to make or keep pay records or failed to give payslips in the required form.
The obligation on Employers to keep proper pay records and payslips has now been elevated so that they will be found to have committed a “serious contravention” if there is a systemic pattern of conduct.
It appears that an employee might have a difficult task establishing that an employer is guilty of a “serious contravention” if there is no evidence of a “deliberate” act. For example, is it a reasonable excuse for an employer to simply argue that they were ignorant of their obligation to issue proper payslips and so have not engaged in “deliberate” action?
One would have thought it a fundamental obligation that employers keep proper payslips and pay records. As a result, any medium to large business with proper human resources and payroll facilities might find it difficult to argue that they had not deliberately engaged and a systematic pattern of conduct.
While Section 557B makes it clear that companies engage in “deliberate” actions if they “expressly, tacitly or impliedly” authorise a “serious contravention”. However, it is not clear what constitutes “deliberate” actions for non-company employers.
A franchisor will also be held accountable for a contravention by their franchisee entity if the franchisor or an “officer” of the franchisor knew or could reasonably be expected to have known about the contravention of their franchisee entity - or that it was likely to occur.
A similar test applies in relation to Holding Companies for the actions of Subsidiary Companies (Section 558B).
However, the Act introduces a defence for franchisors and parent companies if they have taken reasonable steps to prevent a contravention by their franchisee entity or subsidiary (s.558B(3)).
What counts as “reasonable steps” takes into account the size and resources of the franchise; the franchisor’s ability to influence or control the contravening employer’s conduct; and any action they may have taken in assessing an employer’s compliance.
Additionally, for a franchisor to be responsible for the actions of a franchisee, it must have a significant degree of influence or control over the subsidiary’s entities or affairs (s.558A).
One problem with this is that it is not hard to imagine franchisors and franchisees order their affairs in such a way that it is not obvious that a significant degree of control is being exerted, at least in terms of official company documentation.
While the changes introduced by the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 are welcome, time will tell whether the changes are effective in holding franchisors and parent companies to account for the actions of Franchisee or Subsidiary Employers.
Furthermore, the issue of what constitutes “deliberate” conduct by an employee for the purposes of a “serious contravention”, will be a matter which the courts will need to better define as breach cases are decided.
If you'd like to make an enquiry about a legal matter, talk about a career at RCT, or perhaps have a suggestion on how we can improve our service or even our website, we'd like to hear from you.
* Required Field