MCW_Lawyers MCW_Lawyers
MCW_Lawyers
Home our team services changing law seminars contacts
MCW_Lawyers
 
law updates
 
 

accredited certifiers & quality of plans

auctions
avoiding negligence
bankruptcy
business
company structures
contracts
codes sepp
debt
disposal of assets
employees as carers

guide to franchise disputes

insurance

internet content
negligence
neighbours
psychiatric injury
shareholder rights
proposed draft local environmental plan
stolen goods
sub-divisions
tax audits
the new trees legislation
tree dispute principles
trusts
workplace relations
 
law updates > employees as carers
Employees as Carers
Employers must Consider Reasonable Work Options

Recent court decisions affirm that employers have to accommodate employees with family or carer responsibilities. This means that they have to consider all available reasonable working options, though they still might reject job-sharing proposals.

An employee's family or carer responsibilities essentially refers to caring for or supporting a child or other immediate family member - a spouse, grandparent, grandchild or sibling - who is in need of care or support.

A case this year showed that when accommodating the needs of an employee who has carer responsibilities, it is not enough for an employer merely to consider whether it is possible to convert an employee's role into a part-time position. The employer must also consider whether any other part time or casual position is available in the organisation as an alternative.

Mrs M was a business development manager employed on a three year contract in 1999. In 2001 she told her employers she wanted to take 12 months' maternity leave. Her contract was due to expire during that leave and it was extended for a year to 3 January 2003.

During her leave she contacted her supervisor requesting to return to work in a part-time position; this was refused.

The court ultimately found that it was reasonable for the employer to have refused Mrs M's proposal for job-sharing due to the need for consistency of approach and regular interaction with other staff, which would have been problematic had she been working partly from home, or shared her job with another employee.

But it held that the refusal of part-time work for three days per week was unreasonable as suitable part-time work was available in other positions within the company.

The court awarded $30,000 for economic loss, $5,000 for non-economic loss and $3,600.00 interest.

Reproduced from In Touch With The Law, published by the Law Society of NSW

 
services for individuals services for business
  Sutherland 02 9589 6666
  © MCW Lawyers 2008 | This is designed and maintained by Divine Creative Design.
n