Miller Nash LLP’s Post

With upcoming employment law changes, many focussed on making employment more accessible and flexible, I thought I would share again this excellent Brachers LLP webinar with Amanda Sokell on neurodiversity in the workplace. There is some great practical guidance. Well worth a watch. #employmentlaw #hr https://lnkd.in/eTbNhXjS

Louise Usher looks at the issues and risks for employers of personal relationships at work, and the merits of introducing a policy in our latest insight article.   Read more: https://lnkd.in/exTQunxq #employment #hradvice #employmentlaw #humanresources

𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬, 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 Employers who intentionally keep employees in the dark about such matters may be engaging in practices that could be considered unfair, which can have legal and ethical implications. Organizations must prioritize fair and transparent communication to foster a positive and respectful work environment. On the other hand, employees should be proactive in seeking information about changes and clarifying any concerns they may have with their employers or HR departments. #workplaceethics #transparencyinbusiness #employeeawareness #legalcompliance #workplacefairness #communicationmatters #employmentrights #hrtransparency #ethicalbusiness #positiveworkculture

This week on C-Level Law Employment Law Blog, Colin A. Walker is joined by Mark Ashby from LEAD Impairment Training to discuss how employers can best handle substance abuse issues in the workplace. Watch their full interview here -

The Federal Government is evaluating potential changes to #IndustrialRelations laws, including the introduction of a 'right to disconnect'. The policy aims to safeguard #employees from the encroachment of work into their personal lives, granting them the legal authority to ignore work-related communications outside of business hours. The proposal is not without its complexities. The effective implementation of such a right hinges on the details of workplace law modifications. It would require updates to employee agreements or awards to either respect the right to disconnect or compensate employees for being available after hours. More at #Proactive #ProactiveInvestors #RighttoDisconnect http://ow.ly/6FY1105fwKe

Human resources and workplace lawyers explain how to manage the swath of workplace changes about to hit business.

The new workplace "Right to Disconnect" commences on 26 August 2024 for many Australian workplaces. For small businesses, the new laws will commence on 26 August 2025. Our latest Insight article by Michael Nicolazzo, Vanessa Andersen, Emma Short and Michaela Biggins outlines what employers can expect, and practical steps to take now to prepare for these changes. https://loom.ly/hILX-Rc #Maddocks #legalinsights #employmentlaw #righttodisconnect

Read this for practical steps on how to prepare for the "Right to Disconnect" in Australia…

There's been a raft of amendments to the Fair Work Act in recent times and in the article below we look at one of the more contentious changes - the new "Right to Disconnect". As my Maddocks colleagues and I discuss, the changes do not introduce a blanket right for employees to disconnect or switch off outside of ordinary hours. Rather, the critical question will be whether an employee's refusal to monitor or respond to contact is unreasonable. It will be riveting to see how this unfolds and how the Fair Work Commission deals with disputes in the future. Reach out if you have any questions or would like to chat about the new right. #fairworkact #righttodisconnect #employmentlaw #irlaw #maddocks

Justice Raper deals with a range of interesting issues in this (rather lengthy) judgment handed down yesterday, and certainly too many for a LinkedIn post. One of particular interest is the commentary around the alleged contravention of the requirement that employees not be requested or required to work unreasonable additional hours from [332]. There is relatively limited judicial guidance around the operation of s.62, and it has some parallels to the new “right to disconnect” (and employers will inevitably see the latter frequently “thrown in the mix” of general protections claim, as often occurs with s.62). Here, the Court accepted in principle that an employer may contravene the “unreasonable additional hours” proscription by "requiring" an employee to undertake work that is impossible to complete within reasonable working hours. Not surprising. But, the employee must prove (and plead) with some precision exactly how and from whom a “request or requirement” arose (as distinct from either inefficiency or self-motivated diligence by an employee), including when the additional work was performed and what was involved. Often, these types of allegations are made in a far more generalised fashion, similar to what occurred in this case, essentially to the effect that an employee was “’required’ by the faceless entity” to work long hours ([348]) - and that's not sufficient. One wonders whether similar strictures will be applied to an employee alleging they exercised a workplace right to “disconnect”? To what extent will they need to prove the particular occasions of contact that were refused, and the context and circumstances involved (such that each refusal was “reasonable”) in order to activate the right? https://lnkd.in/gW3Z8ySv Kingston Reid #employmentlaw #industrialrelations #fairwork #closingloopholes