on 18-03-2013 02:26 PM
A push by employers to slash the penalty rates of workers in retail and fast food has failed with the Fair Work Commission saying some of the key claims lacked evidence.
In a strongly worded ruling, the full bench of the commission said while there was some evidence in elements of the case brought by employer groups to reduce penalty rates ''it was far from compelling'' and there was ''a significant evidentiary gap in the cases put''.
In the cases before the Fair Work Commission, employers had sought to reduce Sunday penalties in retail from 100 per cent to 50 per cent and to remove the 25 per cent evening penalty for all non-casual hours.
Employers also pushed to remove weekend penalties for the fast food industry, where workers are currently paid 25 per cent penalties on Saturdays and 50 per cent penalties on Sunday.
High profile restaurateur, and MasterChef judge, George Calombaris became a public face of the employer push arguing in late 2011 that restaurants would shut due to the Fair Work laws.
''Sunday is one of our busiest days, but you never make any money,'' Mr Calombaris said. ''The cost of labour is just astronomical. None of us want to go back to those ghost town days we had years ago, but labour laws are getting tougher and tougher.''
The Fair Work decision was in response to a transitional review of workplace awards.
It had previously told employers this review was ''unlikely'' to revisit issues dealt with by an earlier overhaul of awards unless ''there are cogent reasons for doing so, such as a significant change in circumstances''. A later review would be the best place to deal with these issues, it said.
It noted that a high proportion of workers in retail, food and accommodation were low paid and they had a high reliance on their pay being set by awards. Incomes for full-time adults in those industries were about 70 per cent of average earnings, the full bench said.
''While aspects of the (employer) applications before us are not without merit - particularly the proposals to reassess the Sunday penalty rate in light of the level applying on Saturdays - the evidentiary case in support of the claims was, at best, limited.''
The shop assistants union welcomed the decision as a ''huge success'' against a ''sustained'' attack by employers.
"Today's decision proves once again that that penalty rates are as fair and relevant as ever for people who have to work evening and weekends,'' SDA national secretary Joe de Bruyn said.
"The employers didn't substantiate their misconceived claims that people would still work evenings and weekends if the penalties were lower. Nor did their case back up their argument that modern awards don't reflect the modern retail or fast food industries.''
Last week Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the government would enshrine in law that penalty rates, overtime, shift conditions and public holiday pay were ''definite, formal considerations for the Fair Work Commission'' when it reviewed awards in the future.
The media must embrace reform had previously told employers this review was ''unlikely'' to revisit issues dealt with by an earlier overhaul of awards unless ''there are cogent reasons for doing so, such as a significant change in circumstances''. A later review would be the best place to deal with these issues, it said.
It noted that a high proportion of workers in retail, food and accommodation were low paid and they had a high reliance on their pay being set by awards. Incomes for full-time adults in those industries were about 70 per cent of average earnings, the full bench said.
''While aspects of the (employer) applications before us are not without merit - particularly the proposals to reassess the Sunday penalty rate in light of the level applying on Saturdays - the evidentiary case in support of the claims was, at best, limited.''
The shop assistants union welcomed the decision as a ''huge success'' against a ''sustained'' attack by employers.
"Today's decision proves once again that that penalty rates are as fair and relevant as ever for people who have to work evening and weekends,'' SDA national secretary Joe de Bruyn said.
"The employers didn't substantiate their misconceived claims that people would still work evenings and weekends if the penalties were lower. Nor did their case back up their argument that modern awards don't reflect the modern retail or fast food industries.''
Last week Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the government would enshrine in law that penalty rates, overtime, shift conditions and public holiday pay were ''definite, formal considerations for the Fair Work Commission'' when it reviewed awards in the future.
on 18-03-2013 10:54 PM
Have to work together or everyone's screwed.
the definition of working together is?
Your idea that businesses will just shut up and everything will end is ludacris and overly simplified to fit your own arguement.
on 18-03-2013 10:57 PM
I'm not fixated on anything. You want to blame someone for the way penalty rates are paid these days, blame the unions.
Should have always been just for essential services, like nurses, ambos, police.
on 18-03-2013 10:59 PM
the definition of working together is?
Your idea that businesses will just shut up and everything will end is ludacris and overly simplified to fit your own arguement.
I never said business should just shut up and everything will end.
on 18-03-2013 10:59 PM
I think I might pop down to woolies and get some popcorn........
😛
on 18-03-2013 11:01 PM
I'm not fixated on anything. You want to blame someone for the way penalty rates are paid these days, blame the unions.
Should have always been just for essential services, like nurses, ambos, police.
Everyone seems to be happy with penalty rates as they are .
Read the original article, it is businesses who want them gone .
on 18-03-2013 11:05 PM
i started in retail 25 years ago
trading hours have changed greatly in that time.
who pushed for it............the multinationals to squeeze out the little operator
why shouldn't i get paid extra to work on a sunday because some can't manage there time and shop during what used to be normal hours
on 18-03-2013 11:54 PM
I don't agree it should only be essential services that are paid penalty rates. Anyone who is required to work shift work and weekends should be adequately compensated. It's not good for the health and people would avoid it if not for the extra pay.
on 19-03-2013 09:28 AM
i started in retail 25 years ago
trading hours have changed greatly in that time.
who pushed for it............the multinationals to squeeze out the little operator
why shouldn't i get paid extra to work on a sunday because some can't manage there time and shop during what used to be normal hours
You have put it so well in so few words.
I never understood why shops wanted more and more hours, people only have so much money to spend regardless if the shops are open 50 hours a week or 100 hours its still the same people with the same $$
I have been into the local HV on a Sunday and they would be lucky to have a dozen people in the whole place.
Perhaps they should be thinking of the extra CO2 they are causing with the power they are consuming to run lighting and air conditioning and the staff driving to work for no real benefit to the community
on 19-03-2013 09:49 AM
I don't agree it should only be essential services that are paid penalty rates. Anyone who is required to work shift work and weekends should be adequately compensated. It's not good for the health and people would avoid it if not for the extra pay.
I totally agree. When I was doing nursing shifts my children needed child care. Why should be paid penalty rates and not the child carers ?
on 19-03-2013 09:53 AM
When we first moved from the city to a regional/coastal town I struggled with not having all the shops open whenever it was convenient for me. I quickly learned to think a bit more about what I was doing and plan ahead. It's not so hard.
However, if someone is prepared to open their store or cafe to serve me at the weekend or after hours I don't see why they or their staff shouldn't be paid more to do so. And if I am charged more then so be it. Seems only fair to me.