Workplace & Unfair Dismissal News

More Jobs, Less Pay For Female Barristers

This headline is from an article published in the “The Australian” newspaper today (Sept 18, page 6)
I wrote an article on the blog on exactly this topic (16th of Sept) how more females are graduating, entering various professions, how they get less pay than their male equivalents.
Its ironic, the legal industrial that represents people / workers in discrimination and sexism claims doesn’t treat its own workforce equally.
It’s the old adage “do as I say, not what I do”
Still small steps I raised the issue the other day, now “The Australian” is publishing material on it, at least its getting more and more in the conversation.

Its not just about the pay rates, it flows onto promotion, how workers get treated, if you can’t even get equal treatment in the workplace regarding pay, do you seriously think you get equal treatment when comes to performance, discipline issues, dismissals?
It seems common place for male lawyers to take the Friday afternoon, to have a long lunch with their friends (referred to as networking), a female lawyer wants to go home to see her kids in the afternoon after working extraordinary hours for the week and she runs the risk of being laugh at, she is seen as “soft”, “not committed”.

This applies approach applies in a lot of professional workplaces, it is slowly changing, its inevitable, why the wait, act now!! Call us to chat, or do something about it.

“Fortune does favor the brave!”1800 333 666

COVID-19 and Workplace Discrimination and Dismissals – What Are Your Rights?

If you have experienced different or less favourable treatment in your workplace due to your personal circumstances with COVID-19, you may have been subjected to discrimination and certainly should not be dismissed

There are certain personal attributes that are protected by discrimination laws, such as race, disability, gender, pregnancy and family responsibilities. COVID-19 is not a ‘protected attribute’ itself, but discrimination due to COVID-19 is protected by other attributes.

What could the less favorable treatment look like?

• Termination
• Reduced hours
• Not being hired
• Having your job changed to your disadvantage
• Different treatment to colleagues
• Not being given legal entitlements, such as leave or flexible work conditions

I’ve been treated unfairly because I had COVID-19 or was forced to isolate.

This is disability discrimination. ‘Disability’ includes any injuries or medical conditions, such as COVID-19.

• If you are still employed, consider a General Protections (Not Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated within the last 21 days, consider a General Protections (Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated more than 21 days ago but within the last 12 months, consider a Discrimination Complaint in your State human rights body.

I’ve been treated unfairly because my employer thought I had COVID-19, even though I didn’t.

This is also disability discrimination. ‘Disability’ includes any injuries or suspected medical conditions, such as COVID-19.

• If you are still employed, consider a General Protections (Not Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated within the last 21 days, consider a General Protections (Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated more than 21 days ago but within the last 12 months, consider a Discrimination Complaint in your State human rights body.

I’ve been treated unfairly because I was not allowed to work from home, even though I am at high risk from COVID-19.

This is disability discrimination. ‘Disability’ includes any injuries or medical conditions which would make you more susceptible to COVID-19 or place you at greater risk.

• If you are still employed, consider a General Protections (Not Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated within the last 21 days, consider a General Protections (Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated more than 21 days ago but within the last 12 months, consider a Discrimination Complaint in your State human rights body.

I’ve been treated unfairly because I was not allowed to work from home, even though I am pregnant and therefore at risk from COVID-19.

 This is pregnancy discrimination. You cannot be treated unfairly due to being pregnant, especially when you have a valid health concern, such as COVID-19.

• If you are still employed, consider a General Protections (Not Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated within the last 21 days, consider a General Protections (Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated more than 21 days ago but within the last 12 months, consider a Discrimination Complaint in your State human rights body.

I’ve been treated unfairly because I was not allowed to work from home, even though my family member is at high risk from COVID-19.

This is family or carer’s responsibilities discrimination. If your working conditions would place a family member at risk, this can be considered family responsibilities.

• If you are still employed, consider a General Protections (Not Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated within the last 21 days, consider a General Protections (Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated more than 21 days ago but within the last 12 months, consider a Discrimination Complaint in your State human rights body.

I’ve been treated unfairly because I was not allowed to work from home, even though I have family/caring responsibilities due to COVID-19.

This is family or carer’s responsibilities discrimination. If your working conditions would prevent you from fulfilling your responsibilities to your family (for example, as a parent) or as a carer (for example, looking after old or unwell parents), you may be protected.

• If you are still employed, consider a General Protections (Not Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated within the last 21 days, consider a General Protections (Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated more than 21 days ago but within the last 12 months, consider a Discrimination Complaint in your State human rights body.

I’ve been treated unfairly because I made a complaint about my workplace’s COVID-19 policies and procedures.

This is not discrimination. However, making a complaint is considered ‘exercising a workplace right’ and is hence covered by General Protections laws. You may also be covered by State victimisation laws, depending on the nature of the complaint and to whom it was made.

• If you are still employed, consider a General Protections (Not Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been unfairly dismissed or unlawfully terminated within the last 21 days, consider a Unfair dismissal claim (F2) General Protections (Involving Dismissal) claim (F8) in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated more than 21 days ago but within the last 12 months, (if outside this still happy to talk to you about the time line) consider a Discrimination and Victimization Complaint in Federal Human Rights Commission or your State Human Rights or Equal Opportunity body.

I have been treated unfairly because I have a genuine mental health condition and have been very anxious and/or stressed due to COVID-19.

This is mental disability discrimination. ‘Disability’ includes all mental illnesses and conditions. Provided that you have a genuine condition, you may be protected by discrimination laws. For example, unfair treatment may be having your sick leave request turned down, or being criticised or treated differently because of your condition.

•  If you are still employed, consider a General Protections (Not Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated within the last 21 days, consider a General Protections (Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated more than 21 days ago but within the last 12 months, consider a Discrimination Complaint in your State human rights body.

I’ve been treated unfairly because I expressed my political views on COVID-19.

This is political opinion discrimination. You cannot be treated unfairly for expressing your political views, provided that you do not perform any activities breaking the law. For example, if you were terminated or treated differently for expressing your opinions about the current government’s approach to COVID-19, you would be protected.

• If you are still employed, consider a General Protections (Not Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated within the last 21 days, consider a General Protections (Involving Dismissal) claim in the Fair Work Commission.

• If you have been terminated more than 21 days ago but within the last 12 months, consider a Discrimination Complaint in your State human rights body.

I’ve been treated unfairly because I refused to wear a mask or comply with COVID-19 restrictions.

This is not discrimination. Discrimination does not protect you from activities that would break the law. You are entitled to express your political opinion, which is protected under discrimination laws, but this does not extend to performing unlawful activities.

Why Females in the Workplace Are Being Unappreciated and Poorly Paid.

It is widely acknowledged that females earn less money than males.

Many politicians, journalists and commentators, claim that this is due to females tending to be in lower-paid careers. Of course, the pay equality complaint is that females are paid less than males for the same work, but the discussion should also include the fact that females do tend to be in lower paid careers and why. The truth is that “women’s” careers are paid less because it’s females who tend to do the work. Don’t believe me? Just look at the history.
Femininizing Fields
You might hear some people say that if females want to be paid more, they should work in higher-paying fields. This might seem like good advice, but the fact is that the more females who follow it, the less true it will become. This is because jobs are paid less as they gain popularity with females.

Look at recreation: As females began to outnumber men at gyms’, boot camps, as personal trainers and the like, jobs in that field saw a pay drop of 57% from the 1950s until today, even after adjusting for inflation. The same can be seen in more artistic careers as designers, artist, picture framers have seen their wages cut by 34% as the industry as seen more females employed. Biology, and Ecology used to be a highly-respected fields in science, but as more and more females became biologists and are employed, the wages fell by 18% and it’s now seen as a “soft” science, rather than the harder (more masculine) fields of physics and chemistry. Think of other fields, like psychology, teaching, disability care, etc. You can probably come up with dozens of careers and occupations that fit this pattern.

So, jobs are paid less when they become “feminized.” But the opposite is true when males start to take over a previously female-dominated field. A good example is computer programming. Most programmers and systems analysts were once females, and, at that time, the position was seen as menial. As males poured into the field, it began being paid substantially more. Not only that, it’s gained a lot of prestige; no one would say computer programmers have tedious, or menial jobs anymore.

Think that it just shows how priorities have changed over time? Consider doctors. While female doctors are paid less than their male counterparts in any specialty, we also see a massive pay gap between different kinds of specialists. Pediatricians, who are overwhelmingly women, are paid significantly less than most other specialties. There’s even a huge difference between cardiologists and pediatric cardiologists in terms of pay. We can also make comparisons between countries. In the United States, medicine has historically been a very male field and it’s highly paid. In Russia, medicine is a field dominated by women, and it is paid extremely poorly in relation to other professional field.

There is a argument and the evidence indicates that pay is largely determined by the gender build-up of the industry. Male-dominated fields pay, on average, 21% more than more “feminine” fields. It’s not that females choose lower-paying jobs; it’s that females work is paid less, no matter what that work entails.

Minimal Pay
So, what about males in female-dominated careers? Answer: they’re still paid more. Male nurses earn more than female RNs in every specialty. About three quarters of public school teachers are women, which might explain why the field is so poorly paid. Even so, male teachers earn 10%+ more than female teachers. Even the titles change for very similar jobs. Janitors, who are mostly males, earn more than housecleaners, who are generally females.

And then there’s the minimum wage. Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage earners are females. When the minimum wage was introduced in Australia, the idea was that a man working 40 hours each week should be able to support himself and his family at a decent level of living. Today, working full-time on the minimum wage can do no such thing. Back then, the intended beneficiaries were men (and their families). Today, the minimum wage goes mostly to females, and now the minimum wage no longer fulfills its intended purpose. Coincidence? I think not.

It’s Time to Start Appreciating Females and the Work They Do
The simple fact appears to be that typically “feminine” careers are paid less because it’s women who do the work. Regardless of what type of work it is or what skills are necessary, the more females are in a occupation / profession, the less it gets paid. On top of that, males in all fields, including “feminine” industries, are paid more than their female counterparts. This bias in favor of males trickles down to our very minimum wage, which has seen drastically reduced buying power as females began receiving most of those minimum payments. All of this indicates that it’s not women’s work that is undervalued; females themselves are undervalued.

Working women deserve equal recognition, respect, and pay for the work they do. It’s long overdue that females be valued and appreciated, for their contributions to society and otherwise. females still aren’t treated – or paid – equally, and it’s about time they were. If the job is important enough to exist, it’s important enough to pay it fairly, whether male or female do it. It’s time to start valuing females and the work they do.

This article is meant to provoke thought,

I’m not pro female or anti male, i’m pro everybody in the workplaces of Australia. There has to be more discussion in the current difficult economic times, particularly as we start to reemploy people as we come out of the recession. There is no easy answer to the conversation outlined above, history shows us, in recessions, pandemics, that’s it’s the less advantaged, the working class poor, part time workers that are impacted the most. It’s well advertised that partners in accounting and law firms are taking pay cuts on their $400,000 to $800,000 jobs, but there is no doubt they will survive, maybe their lifestyle will have to be adjusted. Workers in lower paid positions, (in many cases females) who are the household dominate income provider, will lose the car, house etc, this will then impact on the physiology of the next generation of children as it did in the great depression.

Ramifications Of Considering If The Chief Health Officer Should Be Sacked

There has been incessant criticism and death threats targeted at the Queensland Chief Health Officer, Dr Jeannette Young, surrounding the rigid Queensland border closures. Calls for Dr Young to resign are resounding throughout the public arena. But who calls the shots? Can the Australian people force Dr Young to resign? Or is it best handled by the Queensland government? How does this apply to other workplaces today, should mob rule, or can public officers and managers at companies ignore the will of the public and the workforce. If Dr Young is sacked,. can she lodge an unfair dismissal claim?

How can we reconcile a lynch mob mentality with the need for procedural fairness?
Fundamentally, Australia is a representative democracy, which means that parliamentarians are representative of, and responsible to, the Australian people. It is from the people directly that governments, both State and Commonwealth, obtain their power. However, Dr Young is not a parliamentarian and nor is she elected. Dr Young is appointed by the Queensland public health service – which makes her just that, a public servant. Hence, it is argued that Dr Young should not be wielding such expansive power when she is not an elected representative of the people. She has not been chosen by the Queensland population to make her decisions, which are often controversial.

It seems that everyone has their two cents’ worth to add on how border closures and quarantine should be managed. But that’s just it – should popular conjecture influence the management of the COVID-19 crisis? Or should it be the carefully formulated by qualified health experts who have dedicated their professional lives to the field?

Despite only becoming recognized in households this year amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr Young has filled her eminent position as Chief Health Officer for 15 years. The response to the COVID-19 crisis this year has been more widely promulgated by the media, as the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting all Australians each and every day. However, what is less acknowledged by Dr Young’s critics is her success in the role in combatting crises such as the Tropical Cyclones Larry and Yasi and the 2010-2011 floods. It is fair to say that Dr Young earned her position as Chief Health Officer, and until this year, no-one cast aspersions over her credibility or expertise.

No-one expected the outbreak of coronavirus. It could not be anticipated. There is no precedent on how to tackle this pandemic that has gripped the entire globe. As ordinary citizens, we hope that our governments are doing the very best in their power to fight this crisis for us. We place our faith in our elected representatives and appointed public service officials, who have nevertheless never seen a health crisis like this one, just like us.

In short, there is no perfect solution. Dr Young’s rigid border closures are unprecedented and have devastated many lives – but the closures have also prevented the devastation of many more, as Queensland is on track to eradicate the virus.

In times of crisis, everyone is tested – the government as much as the people and don’t forget the workers of this country. It is not unusual for frightened and frustrated individuals to search out someone to blame for all their grievances, and usually it is those in authority that are in the firing line, just as Dr Young is presently. Criticism will almost always flow from a crisis, which is entirely acceptable given our democratic freedom of speech. But what’s important to remember is that everyone is only human and no-one can see the future or foretell the best course of events.

The most appropriate way to tackle a crisis is largely speculative, many workplaces face the same scenario, although research and evidence can support a method of doing things, there is almost always a competing course of action. One need only compare the conflicting approaches to the coronavirus pandemic adopted by Sweden and Australia. At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, Sweden controversially refused to enforce a lockdown. Although there was a large spike in deaths initially, their daily recorded cases are now lower than Australia.

Queensland’s border closures are one approach, amongst a myriad of other courses of action that could have been taken. It certainly may not be the best approach, but how can we know what is?

The primary criticism of Dr Young is that she is dictating the policies and procedures of Queensland’s COVID-19 response, to the detriment of many, despite not being an elected representative of the people. Although this is true, Dr Young was appointed by the Queensland Government. As representatives of the people, we would expect that the Queensland Government would take appropriate action to rectify the situation and force Dr Young to resign if deemed necessary. It would fundamentally be in the best interests of the Queensland Government to act accordingly, or otherwise they may risk not being re-elected, as the power of the Queensland Government stems from the ballot alone.

This lynch mob mentality in calling for Dr Young’s resignation is not new. Many Victorians are echoing the same sentiment with regards to Premier Daniel Andrews. Furthermore, time and time again, we see the conduct of high profile CEOs denigrated by the media and the population, many of whom purport to be knowledgeable about matters they know nothing about. The mob mentality is quick to emerge once an error or inefficiency is identified during the tenure of an individual in power. In 2019, the CEO of Boeing, Dennis Muilenburg, resigned amidst criticism surrounding two plane crashes. Likewise, the CEOs of both McDonalds and Nike, Steve Easterbrook and Mike Parker were terminated from their positions in 2019 as a result of being embroiled in various corporate incidents.

Certainly, in such high profile roles, whether it be CEO or Chief Health Officer, there is no room for error. As Dr Young is in such an eminent position and should be responsible to the Australian people, her resignation may be appropriate. The people can urge her to do so, but it is important to remain civil and reasonable. Criticism is reasonable, but death threats certainly are not.

At the end of the day, this lynch mob mentality that has emerged must be reconciled with procedural fairness that only the Queensland Government can wield.

This applies to many workplaces, in the last few days the CEO of Rio Tinto resigned after public and shareholder pressure over the destroying Aboriginal artifacts. There’s always a balance between rights and needs of the employee, employer and other stakeholders, where that balance lies on the spectrum is always the controversial question that demands answers

Your Employment Rights With the COVID-19 Pandemic

Parts of Australia are current in a state of emergency and a state of disaster simultaneously amidst the global pandemic. With this, our rights and the laws we are governed and live under are changing on an extremely frequent basis. Both the state of emergency and state of disaster declared by our different levels of government has a significant effect on our rights, and it is extremely hard to keep up with the overload of information and constantly changing status of the law. So, with this article, we seek to clarify the standing of your employment rights.

Arguably the most common area of advice that is requested from our associates are surrounding redundancies, and whether they are genuine or whether they have been unfairly dismissed.

The high complexity of our industrial relations system prevents a ‘one size fits all’ answer. So, with regard to a redundancy, the first logical question to ask is whether the business or industry your employer is in has been detrimentally affected by COVID-19. If the workflow or stream of revenue has been substantially reduced due to COVID-19, your employer may have a rational reason to have made you redundant as it was a practical business decision.

However, not all hope is lost. Despite the real possibility of downturn in business, do you feel as if there was an ulterior motive in making you redundant over someone else?

Are you of the belief that you were more qualified or experienced than the employee who was not dismissed? Being or having been pregnant, being or having been on workers’ compensation or even having made honest complaints in the workplace, could be grounds for you to argue that your redundancy was actually not genuine.
At A Whole New Approach, we utilize our vast experience, knowledge and our strong logic and common sense to tackle the very real employment issues of today. There were many issues in the work sector where employees wished to protect themselves by wearing protective gear like masks but were prevented from doing so by their employer and sometimes even unfairly dismissed for it. As aforementioned, there is no straight answer to these employment issues, so make sure to contact us immediately to see if there is anything you can do to protect your employment rights amidst the global pandemic.

Mental Health, Animals in The Workplace

Every recession and tragedy in history has shown that people consequently suffer great detriment and negative impact on their mental health and wellbeing, due to harsh economic circumstances. The possible mental health impacts correlated with the imminent economic recession and the coronavirus pandemic is a prominent topic of discussion amongst health professionals and government. With such alarming forecasted figures of the psychological toll on Australians, as a direct result of COVID-19, we are increasingly concerned for our Australian workforce.

Day in, day out, we hear the stories of employees from all over Australia who suffer from poor mental health as either a result of hostile and unsupportive work environments or extraneous circumstances. Redundancies, unfair dismissals, discrimination sexual harassment in these dark times is on the increase. With the projected statistics pertaining to declining mental health, it is imperative that employers create safe and compassionate work environments for their more vulnerable employees.

An increasingly popular method of treating anxiety is to have service dogs or companion animals as they can help ease the effects of panic attacks, provide a sense of calm and even get your medication for you if need be. Other animals that have scientifically proven to help people reduce their anxiety and stress levels are rabbits, fish, guinea pigs, horses and cats. Considering your work may be the most stressful part of your life and the biggest cause for anxiety, you would want your anxiety animal to accompany you. But how appropriate is it to bring your emotional support animal present with you in your workplace?   

We previously had a client who was terminated from her employment for bringing in her support dog to work. This made us curious as to whether employers would see a rise in employees wanting to bring their support animals to the workplace after COVID-19 and the subsequent economic depression. Would it be fair to discriminate against an employee who simply uses an animal in the stead of medication which could impair cognitive functioning or have other health side effects? Is it our human right to be able to treat our illnesses in the way that we think is best?

Our answer to this is to be rational and reasonable. If you currently or will benefit and rely on a support animal in the future and you wish to bring them into your workplace, we suggest you have a healthy and open conversation with your employer on whether this would be appropriate and whether it could be facilitated. It might be interesting for you to know that one of the biggest American corporations, Amazon, allows their Australian employees to bring their pet animals into work! Unfortunately, it will most likely not be appropriate if you work as a nurse in aged care or a hospital, or in any workplace that requires the highest level of hygiene.

We sincerely hope employers will open their minds to the reality of the serious mental health concerns we will be facing in the near future in light of COVID-19 and the economic downturn. If, however, you feel as if you have been unfairly dismissed for exercising your human right to bring your support animal to work, give us a call immediately and we will do our best to help protect your rights.