National Employment Standards Compassionate Business

Question: Describe about the National Employment Standards for Compassionate Business. Answer: 1. The National Employment Standards (NES) prescribes a list of ten legislated minimum employment standards which is applicable to every employee, be it full time, part time, skilled; as the case may be. Section 61 of the Australian Fair Work Act, 2009 (Rules, 2010)specifies the standards which cannot be displaced when it comes to employment. These minimum standards relate to the following matters: (i) Maximum Weekly hours (38 hours a week) (ii) request for flexible working hours applicable in case of working mothers, care takers, or people with disabilities, who can request for flexibility to work from home, or for job sharing etc. (iii) Maternity and paternity leave- where the employees are entitled to 12 months of unpaid leave, besides making request for an additional 12 months of leave (iv) Annual leave-where full-time and part-time employees are entitled for 4 weeks of annual leave, and shift workers up to 5 weeks of annual leave. (v) Personal carers leave and compassionate leave- where employees are entitled to take leave to tend to their immediate family members. (vi) Community service leaves (vii) Long service leave (viii) Public holidays (ix) Notice of termination and redundancy pay provisions as regards dismissal and final pay. (x) Fair Work Information Statement- provides new employee the conditions and information of his employment. (Australian Government fair work Ombudsman, 2012) As a Head of Human Resources in the Engineering Company, I would ensure that all rules as stipulated under the National Employment Standards are complied with during the course of employment. I would pay special care and due attention while drafting of the Fair Work Information sheet, detailing every condition and area of work. It is vital to provide a comprehensive safety rules in the workplace, stating the exclusion zone procedures, due care and precaution to be taken relating to handling of machinery, and working material. It is also my duty to ensure that the employer makes provisions to provide regular training to employees to ensure compliance of these safety rules. I would give instructions to my team members that the workers are hired and dismissed after following the necessary provisions under the Fair Work Act, 2009. In order to resolve the issue at the workplace, I would talk about it to the management, suggesting ways in which it could be resolved. If such a scenario aris es where I would require further assistance, I would take further assistance from the Fair work Ombudsman. 2. In this case, Dave persuaded an otherwise reluctant Rebecca to purchase the Ono Water filter from him, thereby causing to mislead and deceive her by engaging in an unconscionable conduct. By taking advantage of Rebeccas old age and vulnerability, Dave caused undue influence and pressure on Rebecca, who was old and fragile, thereby and exerting unfair tactics(Turner, 2011) in selling his machine. While such acts involving unconscionable conduct violates the provisions of Section 20 of the act, it is against the principles of equity to take advantage of anothers disability; infirmity, in the present case. Section 21(1) of the Consumer Law prohibits supplying goods or services through unconscionable conduct as illegal. The Federal court, while deciding the matter in the case of ACC v Lux Pty Ltd,(ACC v Lux pty Ltd, 2011) held that the salesman and his company had indulged in the act of unconscionable conduct by selling the machine to an illiterate and a disabled woman. It held that s uch contracts were invalid where the customers are not in a position to take voluntary and informed decisions, and those which have been done through sheer misrepresentation of facts and by taking undue advantage of the persons disability. Under the given circumstances of the case, Dave by taking advantage of Rebeccas vulnerable condition used unreasonable tactics to convince her to buy the machine, and hence she is entitled to equitable remedy under the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law. In determining whether the act was unconscionable or not, the courts have laid down several yardsticks to prove the act. It is important to consider whether the consumer was in a bargaining position or not, or whether the supplier use undue influence, unfairness and pressure in selling service or product to the consumer. Applying these parameters to the present case, Rebecca was subject to undue influence that led her to purchase the machine from Dave, thereby leading to an unconscionable act. The remedy available to Rebecca is by way of civil damages through an injunction, or claiming damages for the loss and mental agony. Alternatively, she can also approach the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to seek equitable remedy (Vickery, 2012)against Dave, wherefore the ACCC can conduct appropriate investigation and enforce Section 236 of the ACL. She is entitled to compensation suffered,(Katy Barnett, 2014) under ss 237 and 238 where the court can order compensation for the loss that the plaintiff is likely to suffer in such cases of coercion and undue influence. References ACC v Lux pty Ltd, 600 (Federal Court of Australia 2011). Australian Government fair work Ombudsman. (2012). National Employment Standards. Retrieved 09 30, 2016, from Fair work Ombudsman: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee-entitlements/national-employment-standards Katy Barnett, S. H. (2014). Remedies in Australian Private Law. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Rules, A. F. (2010). National Employment Standards. Sydney: CCH Australia Limited. Turner, C. (2011). Consumer Protection (28th ed.). Queensland: Law Bok Company. Vickery, R. (2012). Consumer Protection and Competition Law. In Australian Business Law (7th Edition ed.). Book Papers.