Alcohol dependence is a complex issue affecting many Australians, and it raises important questions about the role of employment law in safeguarding individuals who struggle with addiction. With alcohol use disorder recognised as a medical condition by the World Health Organization (WHO) and many health organisations in Australia, there is growing debate on whether employment law should offer specific protections for those suffering from alcohol dependence. This article explores the reasons why employment law should protect individuals with alcohol dependence, the current legal framework, and the potential benefits for both employees and employers.

Alcohol Dependence as a Medical Condition

Alcohol dependence, or alcohol use disorder (AUD), is a chronic condition characterised by an inability to control alcohol consumption despite negative consequences. It is a health issue, not a moral failing, and those affected by it often require medical treatment, counselling, and support to recover. Just as employment law protects individuals with other health conditions, such as physical disabilities or mental health issues, many argue that similar protections should be extended to those suffering from alcohol dependence.

The Current Legal Framework in Australia

Under Australian law, individuals with alcohol dependence may be protected in certain circumstances under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). The DDA defines a disability as including a disorder, illness, or disease that affects a person’s mental or physical health, which could encompass alcohol dependence. This means that in some cases, employees struggling with alcohol dependence may be entitled to reasonable adjustments in the workplace, such as time off for treatment or modifications to their work duties.

However, these protections are not always clear-cut. The line between protecting an employee’s rights and addressing workplace safety or performance issues can be difficult to navigate. For example, if an employee’s alcohol dependence leads to unsafe behaviour at work, an employer may have grounds for dismissal. The question is whether the current protections are sufficient or whether more specific guidelines are needed to ensure fairness.

Why Employment Law Should Offer More Protection

There are several compelling reasons why employment law should more explicitly protect individuals with alcohol dependence:

1. Reducing Stigma: Alcohol dependence is still highly stigmatised, and many individuals may avoid seeking help due to fear of discrimination or job loss. Legal protections would encourage a more supportive workplace environment where employees feel safe to disclose their condition and seek assistance.
2. Encouraging Treatment: Offering legal protections for those with alcohol dependence could motivate individuals to seek treatment earlier, reducing long-term health risks and improving workplace performance in the long run. Early intervention and treatment are key to recovery, and the workplace can play an important role in facilitating access to support services.
3. Workplace Productivity and Retention: Protecting employees with alcohol dependence could benefit employers by improving retention rates and reducing absenteeism. When employees receive the support they need to manage their condition, they are more likely to stay engaged and productive at work. Additionally, helping an employee through treatment may be more cost-effective than recruiting and training a replacement.
4. Consistency with Other Medical Conditions: Employment law already protects employees with a wide range of medical conditions, including mental health issues and chronic diseases. Extending similar protections to those with alcohol dependence ensures consistency and fairness, recognising alcohol dependence as a legitimate health condition that deserves the same level of support.

What Can Employers Do?

While the legal framework may not fully protect those with alcohol dependence, employers can still take proactive steps to create a supportive and inclusive work environment. Here are some strategies:

• Implement a Clear Drug and Alcohol Policy: Employers should have clear policies in place that outline how alcohol-related issues will be handled, including support options for those seeking treatment and consequences for unsafe behaviour. A compassionate yet firm approach can help balance workplace safety and employee support.
• Promote Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs): Offering confidential counselling and support services can help employees struggling with alcohol dependence seek the help they need without fear of judgement.
• Encourage a Culture of Openness: Employers can foster an environment where employees feel comfortable discussing health issues, including alcohol dependence, without fear of retribution.

Conclusion

The question of whether employment law should protect those with alcohol dependence is one that touches on issues of fairness, health, and workplace productivity. Given that alcohol dependence is a recognised medical condition, it seems reasonable to extend employment protections to those suffering from it, just as with other health issues. Doing so could reduce stigma, encourage treatment, and ultimately create a healthier and more productive workforce. While Australian law offers some protection, there is room for clearer guidelines to ensure that employees with alcohol dependence are treated with the fairness and compassion they deserve.

Understanding Genuine Redundancy: A Recent Fair Work Commission Case

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently addressed a case involving a worker who claimed unfair dismissal following redundancy. This case brings to light important considerations about what constitutes a genuine redundancy and the processes employers must follow to ensure fairness.

The Worker’s Redundancy Claim

The worker, who had over two decades of experience in the construction industry, contested the validity of his redundancy. Employed by a formwork services company since 2010, the worker had previously been a subcontractor with the same company from 1998. By May 2024, when his employment was terminated, he held the position of Construction Worker Level 6 (CW6), the highest classification under the company’s enterprise agreement.

On 3 May 2024, the managing director informed the worker that his role was no longer required due to changes in the company’s operational needs, resulting in his redundancy. The worker, however, believed his redundancy was not genuine and filed an application with the FWC claiming unfair dismissal.

Worker’s Argument: Redundancy Was Not Genuine

The worker argued that his redundancy was unjustified due to his unique skill set and contribution to the company. He stated that his expertise, particularly in traditional formwork techniques, significantly improved productivity and quality. His ability to perform various tasks to a professional standard made him a valuable asset to the company, he claimed.

In addition, the worker cited previous incidents, including a workplace injury in 2020 and perceived unfair treatment following his brother’s legal action against the company in 2017, to support his claim that the redundancy decision was not purely operational.

Employer’s Defence: Genuine Redundancy Due to Financial Pressures

The employer contended that the redundancy was genuine, driven by financial challenges and a notable downturn in business. The company presented evidence of a 31.3% reduction in square metres laid compared to the previous year, a key performance metric in their industry. This significant decrease in work volume, coupled with high labour costs, necessitated the redundancy of higher-level workers, such as those in CW6 positions.

The managing director and chief financial officer both affirmed that the decision was based on operational requirements alone, with no influence from prior workers’ compensation claims or other unrelated factors.

FWC’s Assessment: Is It a Genuine Redundancy?

The FWC evaluated the case based on three key criteria to determine whether the dismissal constituted a genuine redundancy under the Fair Work Act 2009:

1. Operational Requirements: The FWC accepted the employer’s argument that the business downturn led to the decision to reduce labour costs, specifically targeting CW6 positions. As such, the Commission found that the role was no longer required due to operational changes.
2. Consultation Process: The worker’s enterprise agreement required consultation only for “major changes” in business operations. The FWC ruled that the redundancy did not meet the threshold for a “major change,” as the company’s core services remained unchanged. Therefore, the employer was not obligated to consult with the worker before making the role redundant.
3. Redeployment Opportunities: The FWC was satisfied that there were no suitable alternative roles available within the company for redeployment.

The FWC’s Decision: Genuine Redundancy

Based on these factors, the FWC ruled that the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy, as outlined in section 389 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission acknowledged the worker’s valuable skills and contributions to the company but emphasised that these factors were not relevant to the legal test for redundancy. The FWC concluded that the employer had acted in accordance with the law, given the legitimate operational reasons for the redundancy and the lack of available redeployment options.

Key Takeaways for Employers

This case highlights several important points for employers regarding redundancy:

• Document Decision-Making: Employers should thoroughly document the reasons behind redundancy decisions, including financial and operational data to demonstrate the need for such actions.
• Understand Consultation Requirements: Depending on the relevant award or enterprise agreement, employers may be required to consult with employees about significant workplace changes, including redundancies. Understanding when consultation is necessary can help avoid legal disputes.
• Genuine Operational Reasons: Employers must ensure that redundancies are genuinely based on operational needs, such as downturns in business, and not influenced by personal factors or past incidents unrelated to job performance.

Conclusion

The FWC’s decision in this case underscores the importance of adhering to proper procedures when making employees redundant. Employers should be able to demonstrate genuine operational reasons for redundancies and understand the consultation requirements under relevant agreements. For workers, it serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding redundancy claims and the importance of presenting clear evidence when contesting dismissal decisions.

Is Hybrid Work Dead? Major Employers Rethink Flexible Working Arrangements

In a significant shift, large employers like Amazon, Tabcorp, and the New South Wales public service have declared hybrid work dead, signalling a potential end to one of the most popular work trends of recent years. While the ability to work from home was a necessity during the pandemic, recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data from December 2023 shows that 37% of Australian workers still prefer it. Yet, with some major employers reversing course, it begs the question: Are we at a tipping point, and will other organisations follow suit?

Hybrid Work and Employer Productivity

Despite some employers moving away from hybrid work, research suggests that employee performance doesn’t necessarily decline when working from home. Herman Tse, a professor at Monash Business School, highlights significant evidence supporting remote work’s productivity benefits.

However, this model doesn’t fit every business. Nike, for instance, reduced its hybrid work arrangements after noticing a decline in collaboration and creative output. According to Tse, “For creative and innovative work, in-person interaction is crucial for fostering collaboration.”

Hybrid work also limits social learning, where employees develop skills by observing colleagues. This kind of learning is far more challenging in a remote environment, where workers rely solely on supervisors for guidance.

Extroverts vs. Introverts in Hybrid Work

The impact of hybrid work can vary depending on an employee’s personality. Introverts, for example, may thrive in remote environments that offer fewer distractions and greater focus. Tse believes hybrid work allows introverts to concentrate deeply and structure tasks in ways that suit their preferences.

On the other hand, extroverts often struggle with remote work, missing the spontaneous interactions and energy of the office environment. “Extroverts enjoy in-person collaboration, and without it, they may feel isolated,” says Tse. This divide could see future workplaces catering more specifically to these personality differences.

Employee Engagement in a Hybrid World

With hybrid work models, traditional productivity-based KPIs have evolved to include a broader range of performance metrics. In addition to measuring project deadlines and completion rates, managers now assess employee engagement, collaboration, communication, absenteeism, and customer feedback.

Tse explains that “employers have expanded KPIs to capture employee satisfaction and motivation,” with companies increasingly recognising that a lack of flexibility may drive employees to seek employment elsewhere. This shift highlights the growing importance of monitoring employee engagement as part of overall performance assessments.

For employers, this data offers valuable insights into how workplace flexibility can align with business goals, helping to strike a balance between employee satisfaction and organisational objectives.

Worker Wellbeing: At Home and In the Office

One key challenge of hybrid work is maintaining employee wellbeing. Remote work can lead to feelings of isolation and workplace loneliness, which impacts engagement and productivity. Many companies now use employee surveys to track job satisfaction and the effects of working from home, using this feedback as a “diagnostic tool” to guide policy decisions.

Flexible arrangements can benefit employees who need uninterrupted time for deep work, with the option to return to the office for collaborative sessions. Some managers are also embracing more informal mentoring methods, such as meeting employees for casual coffee catch-ups rather than holding structured meetings.

Managing Hybrid Workers: Challenges for Supervisors

Supervisors arguably face the biggest challenge in hybrid work settings. Managing teams remotely requires clear communication, IT infrastructure investment, and flexibility. Supervisors may have to juggle in-office duties with random hybrid schedules, often meeting employees outside the workplace for informal catch-ups.

A company’s success with hybrid work depends largely on its ability to adapt its culture and structure to these new demands. Investment in tools and processes is crucial, along with offering supervisors the flexibility to manage employees in non-traditional ways.

The Future of Hybrid Work: Flexibility vs. Control

While many employees continue to enjoy the flexibility of hybrid work, it raises new challenges for employers, particularly around moonlighting—where workers take on secondary jobs. Without direct oversight, employers may find it difficult to monitor whether employees are working multiple jobs.

However, imposing strict controls on this practice could backfire. “If employers come down hard on moonlighting, employees might leave for companies that offer more flexibility,” Tse warns. For workers balancing multiple responsibilities, flexibility can be essential for financial support and work-life balance.

Conclusion

As more large employers move away from hybrid work, it raises questions about the future of workplace flexibility in Australia. While hybrid work models offer benefits for both introverts and autonomous workers, some businesses, particularly those reliant on collaboration and creativity, may see hybrid arrangements as a hindrance.

The shift away from hybrid work marks a critical juncture for organisations, who must balance the need for in-person collaboration with the desire for employee flexibility. With employee engagement and wellbeing on the line, companies will need to carefully navigate this transition, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach may not work in a rapidly evolving workplace landscape.

Fair Work Commission Case: Workplace Bullying, Harassment, and Dismissal

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently handled a case involving serious allegations of workplace bullying and harassment, centring on a worker’s dismissal after making inappropriate comments towards a coworker. This case highlights key issues around workplace behaviour, company policy enforcement, and the importance of considering individual circumstances in dismissal decisions.

The Incident: Inappropriate Comments Towards a Coworker

The case involved a 62-year-old truck driver who worked for a phosphate mining company on Christmas Island for nearly 20 years. The worker was dismissed after allegedly making repeated inappropriate and offensive comments to a coworker, including accusations of “sucking up to the boss” while using obscene hand gestures.

The inappropriate comments began in April 2024, with the worker repeatedly making offensive remarks, such as “sucking the boss’s dick,” while imitating sexual acts. Despite the coworker’s requests to stop, the worker continued the behaviour daily until May 2024. When the coworker threatened to file a formal complaint, the worker escalated the situation by telling other employees to avoid joking around the coworker, implying that he would report any misconduct.

The situation culminated in a heated altercation on June 1, 2024, in which the worker became aggressive towards the coworker, further intensifying the hostile work environment.

Allegations of Workplace Harassment

The employer argued that the worker’s actions breached several company policies, created a hostile work environment, and constituted harassment. As a result, they believed the worker’s behaviour warranted immediate dismissal.

However, the worker, represented by his union, argued that he was unaware of the specific policies he had breached. He also pointed to his long service record and the limited job opportunities on Christmas Island as mitigating factors that should have been taken into account.

The Role of Company Policies in Dismissal

A critical aspect of this case was the implementation and communication of workplace policies. The FWC found that the employer’s efforts to roll out and train employees on workplace behaviour standards were insufficient, especially for remote workers.

The Commissioner noted, “[The employer] was restricted to essentially saying that the policies had been around for a while, so they assumed that they had been rolled out. In the absence of some records or other indication, I am not satisfied that this is the case.”

This finding underscores the importance of employers ensuring that all employees, particularly those in remote locations, are properly trained and made aware of workplace policies. Failure to adequately communicate and implement policies can have serious implications in cases of misconduct.

The Worker’s Circumstances: Long Service and Limited Job Opportunities

The FWC also considered the worker’s unique situation, including his long service record and the limited job prospects on Christmas Island. The Commissioner observed that at 62 years old, the worker’s future employment opportunities may be limited to blue-collar jobs, and his age could further impact his ability to find work, even if this factor is not overtly acknowledged.

Additionally, a job search revealed only five available positions on Christmas Island, most of which required skills beyond the worker’s experience. This limited job market was a key consideration in determining whether the dismissal was overly harsh.

Was the Dismissal ‘Harsh’?

The FWC ultimately found that, while there was a valid reason for the worker’s termination due to his inappropriate conduct, the dismissal was still harsh and unjust given the broader circumstances. The Commissioner explained, “I have concluded that despite the valid reason for termination, the dismissal of [the worker] was nevertheless harsh and unjust.”

The FWC also acknowledged that the worker’s lack of proper training and understanding of company policies may have contributed to his behaviour. The Commissioner added, “I believe that I must give some weight to my finding that [the worker’s] lack of exposure to and understanding of the relevant policies may have been a contributory factor.”

The Importance of Proper Policy Implementation

The case highlights the critical role that comprehensive policy implementation and training play in preventing inappropriate workplace behaviour. The FWC stressed that clear communication of behavioural standards and the consequences of breaches are essential for maintaining a positive and respectful work environment.

“I am satisfied that this may have changed [the worker’s] behaviour. It may not have changed [the worker’s] underlying personal views, but if [the worker] was working in an environment where everyone clearly knew the standards that were expected, why they were expected, and the consequences for breach, I think the likelihood of [the worker] engaging in the behaviours that [the worker] did would have been reduced,” the Commissioner noted.

Conclusion

This FWC case serves as a reminder for employers to ensure that all workers, especially those in remote or isolated locations, receive adequate training and are made aware of workplace behaviour policies. It also illustrates the importance of considering an employee’s personal circumstances, including long service and local job prospects, when making decisions about dismissal.

Employers must take a proactive approach in implementing and communicating workplace policies to prevent harassment and bullying. In doing so, they can foster a safer, more respectful workplace for all employees.

Liquid HR is a leading HR consulting firm helping businesses of all sizes to navigate the complexities of human resource management, while providing tailored HR services based on their unique requirements, including HR Outsourcing, Recruitment and HR Advisory Services.

With offices in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, we work with businesses across Australia.

For more information, please contact us on 1300 887 458 and speak with one of our HR Consultants.