This from todays Australian newpaper regarding the new IR laws.
I like the bit about unfair dismissal - 'operational reasons?'. JQ would really love this...
"Most employers will have the power to dismiss without needing to give a reason. The only available recourse will be if an employee can prove unlawful dismissal because of discrimination. Unlawful dismissal claims will be difficult to prove if an employer gives no reason for the sacking. And the cost of running a case in the Federal Court -- at least $30,000 -- will be an obvious restraint on employees.
People in firms with more than 100 staff, such as BHP Billiton, Qantas or Coles Myer, will keep the right to claim unfair dismissal, based on harsh, unjust or unreasonable treatment. But from Monday such employers will also have the right to dismiss for ``genuine operational reasons''.
The minister's chief minder, Ian Hanke, plays down the significance of this clause and says it is linked to redundancy. Most industrial lawyers disagree and believe it will be fought out in the courts. This is because there is no mention of redundancy in the new provision and the definition of operational reasons is vague: the law says an employee will not be unfairly dismissed if the termination is ``for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature relating to the employer's undertaking, establishment, service or business, or a part of the employer's undertaking, establishment, service or business.''
Joe Catanzariti, partner and head of workplace relations at law firm Clayton Utz, says such dismissals must include genuine operational reasons and does not believe redundancy is relevant. ``If the Government wanted it to mean redundancy, they would have said so,'' he says.
Andrew Stewart, professor of industrial law at Flinders University, says two interpretations are possible. The first, based on a literal reading, will allow employers to escape almost all unfair dismissal claims. ``Most dismissals have something to do with a person's conduct or capacity and it would be easy to rationalise as something to do with the business,'' Stewart says. ``If that interpretation is accepted, there are no unfair dismissal laws.''
The other interpretation, he says, is that ``operational reasons'' have been linked in the past with retrenchment and therefore could be code. ``In that context it would refer to a dismissal by reason of redundancy.''
One clear-cut change for many serving employees from Monday is that a list of conditions until now legally permissible in employment contracts will become invalid and get deleted from existing agreements.
These conditions, called prohibited content, include paid leave to attend union meetings and the right of unions to participate in resolving disputes. The Government justifies the deletions on the ground that only matters linked to the employment relationship should be allowed in agreements between a company and its workforce.
The world will most definitely change for new employees, depending on their bargaining leverage. From Monday, employers will be free to offer jobs on vastly reduced conditions.
In the past, entitlements including overtime, penalty rates, shift work, allowances and public holidays had to be taken into account so workers were no worse off in overall terms than the award for their occupation. In future, just five minimum conditions will apply: a minimum wage starting at $484 a week, annual leave, sick leave, parental leave and an averaged 38-hour week. And most employees who were previously employed under more generous state systems will be dragged into the net under a new national regime. "
For all the nay-sayers out there, the threats are very much reality.