A Study in General Protections

Apr 22nd, 2024

Over the last year, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has been active in pursuing universities for what has been described as “entrenched non-compliance” when it comes to paying staff in line with the applicable award or enterprise agreement.

These institutions had been issued with enforceable agreements and have been keeping to them as ordered. That said, recent litigation undertaken by the FWO has highlighted how a specific institution, despite rectifying historical underpayments, has continued to engage in breaches of employees’ fundamental workplace rights.

For context, it is prohibited for adverse action to be taken against workers because of any protected actions they have taken, or any protected characteristics that they possess. One of these protected actions is the ability for a worker to make a complaint about their employment, especially in the way it relates to their entitlements.

In the FWO’s view, two casual academics at this university were subject to adverse action after exercising this workplace right, having put in complaints about working overtime without having received the appropriate remuneration.

The university responded to these complaints by threatening not to re-engage the employees, while additionally ceasing to offer work to another employee who had claimed payment for extra work they had carried out.

When the FWO pursued these breaches in court, the university was ultimately penalised $74,590 in total, $37,295 for each offence. Not only this, but the academics in question also received individual payouts for non-economic loss from the institution.

This decision emphasises that employers need to be aware of the multiple obligations they hold towards workers – while paying them at the appropriate rate is an aspect of remaining compliant, employers must also stay on top of their general protections obligations, so no adverse action is inadvertently engaged in.
 

Back to News