Small and medium establishments and the new federal workplace relations system

Employment Relations Record, Jan, 2007 by Michael Lyons, Dennis Mortimer, Elizabeth Whiting, Fiona Wilkinson

The September 2005 interviews of thirteen SME managers also showed a general satisfaction with the pre-NWRS industrial relations arrangements. The interviewees' comments concerning the award system included:

'Awards keep everyone equal ... everyone knows about it, they know the differences in wages'.

'[Awards are] an easy, simple, approach, not reinventing the wheel. [Awards are] something to judge against [and] gives the staff something to judge against'.

'Awards are the easiest way to go'.

'[I chose] awards because I wanted an industry standard as a point of reference [to develop] our own arrangements'.

'Happy with awards'.

We also asked the interviewee managers if they saw any benefits of the changes to the award system under the NWRS for their business. Their comments included:

'Happy with State legislation, not particularly interested in federal legislation'.

'Can't see any advantage with these changes for small business'.

'I don't agree with cutting sick pay and that. But [it] doesn't change anything for us. It affects people like Coles, McDonalds who use slave labour with no penalty [rates]. I just keep paying staff the same, keep looking after them and keep them happy.'

'... no problem with the current State legislation'.

'Current legislation is fine'.

UNFAIR DISMISSAL

Under the NWRS employees working for corporations with fewer than 100 staff are exempt from unfair dismissal protection (Riley and Sarina, 2006). The federal government asserts, in the WorkChoices Act's Explanatory Memorandum, that the pre-2006 unfair dismissal laws were more of a concern for smaller and medium sized businesses than larger establishments (Explanatory Memorandum, 2005: 23). The Opposition Senators report on the 2005 Act contested the government's assertions:

   The other side to the Government's claim about jobs growth hinges
   on the current unfair dismissal laws and their presumed impediment
   to employment in small and medium sized businesses. One of the
   Government's more contentious claims is that removing the existing
   provisions for unfair dismissal from businesses which employ up to
   and including 100 employees will generate up to 77,000 jobs,
   especially in the small business sector. Opposition senators refer
   to the findings of the references committee majority report into
   unfair dismissal and small business employment, which was tabled in
   June 2005. It found that there is no empirical evidence or research
   to support the Government's claim. The Government's proposition is
   breathtaking for its lack of logic and empirical support. The
   report showed conclusively that claims by the Government and
   employer groups are based on wishful thinking and fuelled by
   misinformation instead of objective appraisal of the facts
   (Opposition Senators, 2005: paragraph 1.51).

Such 'misinformation' is evident in some employer association submissions and comments. For example, the NRA (2005: 5) claim the new federal unfair dismissal laws 'do not go far enough' as they consider no need for employment protection other than 'unlawful termination' rights (see Sappey et al., 2006, Chapter 7, for a discussion of the difference between unfair dismissal and unlawful termination). Furthermore, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry ('ACCI') argue 'Dismissal laws appear consistently in the reported concerns of employers' (ACCI, 2005: 26), yet any decrease in the importance of unfair dismissal to SMEs reported by research is due to employers 'hav[ing] learnt to cope in some way' with the laws (ACCI, 2005: 25). Hence an analogy between unfair dismissal laws and the goods and service tax ('GST') reporting obligations could be made: