" Unfair Dismissal " Law Review !

Many business owners are reluctant to fill vacancies with " permanent employees " because if that person turns out to be unsuitable they may face a long and costly action under the " Unfair Dismissal " code.  They seek safety by filling such vacancies with " casual " employees and we now have thousands whose job could be described as " permanent casual ".   They have worked for the same  employer for a number of years without a status change.

Under Australian law a permanent employee is entitled to superannuation cover to build a retirement nest egg while a casual gets an increased hourly rate to compensate for that omission.  Most working on a casual basis encounter a reluctance by the banks to approve home loan applications.  That " permanent " classification is the test of stability that the lending institutions very obviously favour.

Now the Ombudsman has called for a change to those unfair dismissal laws to make it easier for employers to terminate staff who steal or are drunk at work without having to face a lengthy tribunal hearing.  The present unfair dismissal laws are  slanted very sharply in favour of the employee and the Ombudsman is in position to view whether the law is presently fair to both sides.

The sheer number of cases proceeding to examination is a worry.  In the first three months of this year 3583 unfair dismissal complaints were received and just 172 were presented to the commission for judgement.   Another 111 were dismissed because they were without merit or deemed legally invalid and the rest were settled by mediation.   Less than one percent were backed by the industrial umpire.

An employer expects that the people who work in his or her business are honest and diligent.  It is expected that they will be reliable and turn up on time and be dressed appropriately.  That is not an unreasonable expectation and if it is not met the employer has a legitimate reason for the termination.  It now seems that even the most glaring misconduct by the employee will result in an unfair dismissal claim.

Those unfair dismissal laws were put in place to protect employees against arbitrary dismissal, but some employees think they have a right to a job in almost any circumstances.  Unfortunately, it is this reliance on unfair dismissal laws when some sections of the workforce refuse to comply with reasonable standards that is killing off permanent jobs and replacing them with casual positions.

Th Ombudsman does have a point.  Unfair dismissal does impose obligations on both employer and employee - and there are circumstances where dismissal is justified !