Independent Contracting: Back in the Spotlight

Photo by tyler hendy on Pexels.com two spotlights.

Labour hire providers should note that there are currently two appeals before the High Court, which challenge accepted approaches to the characterisation of independent contractors. The outcomes could upset independent contracting arrangements that are overly dependent on the technicalities and “deep entrenchment” of the Odco system and may lead staffing agencies to a fresh need to review their use of independent contractors.

CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting[1]

Trial

A young UK backpacker, who “had no aspect of a business or intended business, no expressed desire to act in any capacity other than as a builder’s labourer, and merely sought remuneration for the deployment of his labour on a building site supervised, directed and controlled by the builder”[2] was characterised, at first instance,[3] as an independent contractor on an application of the multi-factor test and Odco principles.

Appeal

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia upheld the finding despite the absence of any business clearly having been carried on by the worker.[4] However, in doing so, the Chief Justice expressed a preference for a different outcome though feeling constrained by intermediate appellate decisions which had previously supported Odco contracting arrangements.[5]

Special Leave

The High Court granted special leave to appeal in February this year. The Appellant’s submissions were filed last Friday (16 April 2021).

At issue is a question of whether the multi-factor test was correctly applied in a labour-hire context. There is a related question about the need for workers to be carrying on their own independent businesses in order to be independent contractors.

ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek & Ors[6]

Trial

The case concerned the various entitlements of truck drivers, who derived their sole income by working for same business for nearly 40 years – and the corresponding obligations of the company for which they worked. It’s not a labour hire case, but it raises similar characterisation questions about the role of the business test in determining whether workers are employees or independent contractors.

The drivers were required to purchase a truck to retain work and contracted with the company through their family partnerships, which owned the trucks.  The drivers were required to be available to work during set hours. The company logo was displayed on drivers’ trucks and company branding appeared on the drivers’ clothing. Although the drivers theoretically may have had the ability of sell their goodwill, they had no practical capacity to generate any goodwill of their own.

On an application of the multi-factor test the drivers were held to be independent contractors.[7] A deciding factor was that the workers were held to be running businesses of their own.[8]

Appeal

The Full Federal Court reversed the decision on appeal.[9]  Wigney J’s judgment highlights the problems facing those who rely too much on cleverly crafted documents and overly sophisticated or artificial arrangements.

To my mind, the primary judge concluded as he did by giving primacy and excessive weight to contractual labels and theoretical possibilities and insufficient weight to the reality and totality of the working relationship between the parties, as demonstrated by the way they actually conducted themselves over many years.”[10]

Although the drivers’ arrangements displayed some of the trappings of carrying on their own businesses, that was not sufficient to displace the reality, observed after consideration of the whole work relationship, that they were employees.[11]

Special Leave

The case is to be heard together with CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting. The Appellant’s submissions were filed last Friday (16 April 2021). At issue are questions about whether the drivers were “employees” for purposes of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) and “workers” for purpose of Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW).

What next?

Respondents’ submissions in both cases are due to be filed in May, and any replies in early June. After that, the matters will be listed for hearing.

In light of these developments, it might be prudent for staffing agencies to review their independent contracting arrangements, and make contingency plans for managing any that could unravel should the High Court hand down a decision that indicates that they may no longer be sustainable.

Andrew C. Wood


[1] Construction, Forestry, Maritime and Energy Union & Anor v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2021] HCATrans 30 (12 February 2021).

[2] As described by Alsopp CJ on appeal. see fn.5 below.

[3] Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1806 at paras [171] to [181].

[4] Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 122

[5] At para [31].

[6] ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Jamsek & Ors [2021] HCATrans 27 (12 February 2021).

[7] Whitby v ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1934.

[8] At para [213].

[9] Jamsek v ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 119.

[10] At para [19].

[11] At para [248].

“Employer-of-Record” vs “True Employer”

The recent NSW Supreme Court decision in Branded Media Holdings[1] holds some important lessons for recruiters and others who are considering the use of outsourced employer-of-record (EoR) services – especially if they imagine that using EoR services will protect them, in all cases, from liability as the “true employer”.  That’s because statutory and common law liabilities generally rest with the true employer, irrespective of where formal documents might be trying to direct them

In Branded Media, liquidators and deed administrators of two related companies sought directions from the court as to the identity of the employer of specified employees within the Branded Media Group.

The companies were Branded Media Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) (Holdings) and Brand New Media Pty Ltd (subject to a deed of arrangement) (BNM). The liquidators and deed administrators’ position was that Holdings was the employer.

The Commonwealth intervened to contend that BNM was the employer. The Commonwealth had advanced more than $1 million in respect of the employees’ unpaid entitlements under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012  and stood to recover a substantially higher amount if BNM was held to be the true employer.

The contest was clouded by uncertainty because, whilst the formal documents recorded Holdings as the employer, day-to-day management of the work relationship was conducted by BNM.

The court held that the true employer was BNM. Some telling factors included:

  • Holdings did not conduct any business by which it generated income;
  • Holdings was not the recipient of the services of the employees;
  • the employees provided their services to BNM;
  • Holdings was wholly dependent upon BNM to meet its financial obligations;
  • Holdings did not operate any bank accounts;
  • Holdings did not in fact pay the employees;
  • BNM in fact paid the salaries and wages of the employees;
  • BNM had its logo on some employment forms;
  • business cards used by the employees bore the logo of BNM;
  • the sign-off section of emails sent by the employees referenced BNM;
  • the website referencing the Employees referenced BNM.

You might already be getting a sense of how some of those factors might play out in a case where a staffing agency supplies workers to one of its clients, managing their shifts, providing them with agency uniforms, and binding them to agency policies; but arranging for those workers to be employed “on-the-record” by an outsourced payroll company.  

The Branded Media case is important because the Court clarified the principles that are used to determine which of the two companies was the actual employer. In doing so, it made clear that:

The Court must look to the “substance and reality” in identifying the true employer in these circumstances and would look beyond contractual documentation and to the reality of the manner in which the parties conducted themselves in order to do so.[1]

[The Court may also] have regard to whether the suggested arrangement had an “intelligible business objective” which is “consistent with the financial and administrative organisation of the business”.[2]

The case is also helpful to the extent to which it clarifies that employment-of-record is not a distinct category of employment, but nothing more than an expression to describe an arrangement by which certain of the true employer’s statutory or contractual responsibilities are performed by someone else.

Such an arrangement will not necessarily relieve the true employer of those responsibilities if the EoR fails in performance. And some liabilities, such as the employer’s vicarious liability at common law, may continue to rest with the true employer to the extent to which they derive from the true employer’s notional control of its employees.

The need to identify the true employer will also arise in the context of labour hire licensing prosecutions to the extent to which it may be necessary to determine whether workers of an unlicensed provider who has sought to outsource the obligation to pay its workers to an EoR payroll company may be left with the residue of the statutory obligation to pay sufficient to necessitate the holding of a licence -despite having passed to the EoR a contractual obligation to pay the workers.

Andrew C. Wood


[1] In the matter of Branded Media Holdings Pty Limited (in liquidation); In the matter of Brand New Media Pty Limited (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2020] NSWSC 557 at [14] adopting Counsel’s submission to that effect.

[2] At [26], developing a further dimension to the test which may be effective to challenge sham arrangements directed at avoidance.

WorkAccord’s “Tuesday TalkAbout” to Return in July

Slide17WorkAccord’s “Tuesday TalkAbout” series of free, short webinars is set to return for a fourth season at 8:30 am AEST on July 21st 2020.

With The Recruitment, Consulting & Staffing Association’s new Code for Professional Conduct, authorised by the ACCC last year, commencing on August 8, the focus of the series will be on the Code’s principles of operational integrity.

As the author of the Code, I’m looking forward to  discussing topics such as Confidentiality, Care, Complaints Handling, Certainty of Engagement, Social Sustainability, Assurance, and Disclosure.

Here’s the Winter programme:

1.   RCSA Code: What’s New? (21/07/20)

Our first Tuesday TalkAbout for the Winter 2020 season presents an overview of the RCSA Code for Professional Conduct and asks, “What’s new?”

We’ll explain why this Code is different from what has gone before. We’ll explore the ethical principles that underpin the Code; and look at its statement of principles for personal professionalism and operational integrity. Finally, we’ll discover what the Code requires of RCSA Members and how RCSA supports its Members’ journey along the “Pathway to Professionalism”.

2.   Social Sustainability (28/07/20)

The new RCSA Code requires Members to

  • conduct business in a way that avoids causing or contributing to exploitation through their activities; and
  • seek to prevent or mitigate risks of exploitation that are linked to their operations or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those risks.

In this session, we’ll discover what the Code means when it talks about “exploitation” and we’ll learn about steps that you can take along your pathway to professionalism to reduce the risk of exploitation in your service networks.

You can register for this webinar here.

3.   Ascertain & Assure (4/08/20)

RCSA Members will be required to:

  • apply resources; and
  • establish and maintain controls

to ascertain and assure themselves, to a reasonable standard of confidence, that they meet the requirements of the regulatory environment in which they operate.

This session focuses on how to identify regulatory requirements and what types of controls you can implement in a recruitment and staffing environment to be confident that you are meeting them.

You can register for this webinar here.

4.   Certainty of Engagement (11/08/20)

Under RCSA’s new Code, Members will need to take reasonable steps:

  • to ensure the certainty, transparency, and scope of their agreements; and
  • to obtain adequately informed consent

for the provision of a workforce service, or for the performance of a service network role.

In this session, we’ll talk about provisions that present regular challenges and discuss what you can do to make their operation more certain. We’ll look at scoping provisions, screening responsibilities, fees & charges, restraints of trade, candidate replacement and other guarantees.

You can register for this webinar here.

5.   Confidentiality & Privacy (18/08/20)

Recruitment & staffing professionals handle vast quantities of confidential and personal information. Much of it is highly sensitive.

In this session, we’ll talk about some of the challenges that you will face and how you can deal with them. You’ll learn to identify when information is confidential and how to handle exceptions. You’ll learn about the different privacy regimes that you might operate within and why it is important to have a good understanding of your privacy obligations when you are obtaining consent to collect, use and disclose personal information. We’ll also look briefly at some of the additional issues that arise when you are operating in an on-line environment.

You can register for this webinar here.

6.   Complaints Handling (25/08/20)

RCSA Members will be required to establish and maintain credible grievance handling mechanisms and corrective action procedures, appropriate to their size and circumstances, to address any failure to meet the standard of professional conduct required by the RCSA Code.

In this session we will talk about how you can do that, using some of the principles in AS/NZS 10002:2014 Guidelines for complaint management in organizations.

You can register for this webinar here.

7.   Care (1/09/20)

A concept of care, requiring attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness underpins the new RCSA Code for Professional Conduct.

In this session, we’ll explore the concept of care and talk about its specific application to Members’ responsibility to meet the value promises they make about the quality of their services. Is there room, in a professional conduct framework, for an “all-care-no-responsibility” approach anymore? Let’s find out!

You can register for this webinar here.

Let’s talk again soon!

Andrew C. Wood Hon, FRCSA (Life)

 

 

 

 

The Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020 (ACT) – More variations on a theme

The Australian Capital Territory has made good its intention to enact labour hire licensing legislation. This is the fourth Australian jurisdiction to enact a licensing scheme – if you count South Australia, which has just started to wind the coverage of its scheme back to imit its application tohigh-risk sectors.

So, what’s the deal in the ACT? You can spend hours on this stuff and still not know what it all means until the courts start to interpret it. But here are a few features you might want to note that give the ACT scheme its own unique character.

Status

Early days. We still need to see the regulations and application forms, which will add layers of detail.

Commencement

Probably 1 January 2021, with a 6-month transition period.

Objects

  • Protect workers from exploitation by providers of labour hire services; and
  • Ensure labour hire service providers meet their workplace obligations and responsibilities to the workers they supply; and
  • Promote the integrity of the labour hire services industry; and
  • Promote responsible practices in the labour hire services industry.

Coverage

You’re a labour hire provider if, in the course of carrying on a business, you supply to another person (the hirer) a worker to do work.

The definition is closer to the very wide Queensland model. There’s no attempt to give meaning to what “supply” means and no use of the complex integration test (to perform work in and as part of the hirer’s business or undertaking) adopted in South Australia and Victoria.

Neither is there any attempt to exclude licensed private employment (placement) agencies (PEAs) as there is in Queensland and South Australia, even though the ACT has a separate PEA licensing scheme.

This will mean that the requirement to hold a licence will often come down to whether the person supplied to do the work is a worker within the meaning of the Act. We’ll look at that in a moment.

Unlike Victoria, there’s no explicit extension of the scheme to PEAs who provide accommodation, or to Contractor Management Services providers. Although, that might be unnecessary in view of the width of the coverage.

The “Regardlesses”

Not an Indie band – but a set of provisions that say you’re a labour hire provider no matter what (regardless).  So, you would need a licence regardless of whether:

  • the worker is employed by you; or
  • there is a contract for the worker to do the work; or
  • the worker is supplied by you directly or indirectly; or
  • the work completed by the worker is under the control of you or the hirer.

All four State and Territory licensing schemes use some version of the regardlesses. They’re designed to extend coverage to tiered supply and contracting chains. They are capable of producing a lot of unintended consequences. You need to do a few worked examples to see what they lead to. But, basically, you can be a labour hire provider even though you’re not engaging the worker. That might cause a few headaches for payroll companies.

Regulations can exempt a stated person from coverage meaning that they would not have to have a licence. That’s not as good as it looks. It relates to “stated persons” rather than to classes of persons and it falls well short of anything you might have heard to the contrary about the Minister or the Commissioner having a power to declare exemptions.

Who is a “worker”?

Only an individual can be a worker. An individual is a worker for a provider if the individual enters into an arrangement with the provider under which—

  • the provider may supply, to another person, the individual to do work; and
  • the provider is obliged to pay the worker for the work—
    • in whole or part; or
    • directly or indirectly.

This definition is also pretty standard across the four licensing schemes. But it’s riddled with problems because there’s no clarity about the nature of the “obligation”. It’s easy enough if the obligation arises directly from a work/wages bargain.

But things get complicated if the obligation arises from an escrow obligation such as you might see with some of the freelancing platforms, or if the worker is not paid for the work but receives distributions from a trust or is remunerated in some other manner.

Also, keep in mind that a person can be your worker, even though you’ve not engaged them. Again, this could cause some headaches for payroll companies and contractor management services providers.

The Minister can declare that a person is or is not a worker. This is a bit easier than the power to exempt a provider by regulation. Still, it’s not an easy path and I doubt that we’ll see anything like the liberal application of the similar power to exempt by gazettal, which we saw in South Australia before the Act there was changed.

The Offences

  • Supplying a worker without having a labour hire licence – huge fine 3,000 penalty units for a corporation; 800 penalty units for an individual
  • False representation that a licence is held – 200 penalty units
  • Breach of licence condition – 300 penalty units
  • Entering into an arrangement to acquire services from an unlicensed provider – huge fine 3,000 penalty units for a corporation; 800 for an individual

Ignorance might actually be an excuse in the ACT – Consider “Kevin”.

If you’re a hirer (host) you won’t commit the offence of entering into an arrangement with an unlicensed provider if you had a reasonable excuse. Consider this example of a reasonable excuse included in the Act:

Kevin decides that he needs a cleaner for his house. He sees an advertisement on a social media site by a company offering domestic cleaning services. Kevin did not know that the company was an unlicensed labour hire services provider nor was there anything in the advertisement or otherwise to make him aware that he should check that the company was licensed.

That’s going to raise a lot of questions about what you should and shouldn’t know about the scheme. You might get away with it if you’re a householder, like “Kevin”; but my guess is that you wouldn’t want to be putting your eggs in that particular basket if you’re a business acquirer of labour hire services.

Where is the anti-avoidance measure?

It seems like a curious omission, but I can’t I can’t find an express anti-avoidance measure. I’d be interested to learn why, if anyone knows the reason. The last thing you’d want is a scheme that is tolerant of a certain degree of contrived ignorance! Maybe there’ll be some attempt to fix it in the regulations.

Fit and proper person test

A version of the now familiar fit and proper person test applies to all “influential” people for a provider. Influential people for a corporation include a person who can exercise a power to:

  • take part in a directorial, managerial or executive decision for the corporation; or
  • elect or appoint a person as an executive officer in the corporation; or
  • significantly influence the conduct of the corporation.

Think about that last point for a moment. Who could that include? Your significant shareholders? Your financiers? Your industry association? Your suppliers? Your clients? Your spiritual advisors?

It’s a pretty wide category and it’s going to take a fair bit of common sense to know where to draw the boundaries. And, of course, there’ll be outliers.

The rest of it

As to the rest of it, there’s a lot of administrative provisions about applications, licence onditions, enforcement, inspectors, appeals, the establishment of a Commission and an Advisory Committee.

You can read a copy of the Act for yourself here.

Treat it as a broad framework and expect more detail  – including information about fees – in the regulations when they become available. There’s still a bit of work to be done before we know how this scheme will actually work.

Andrew C. Wood

 

 

 

 

 

 

WorkAccord’s Autumn “Tuesday TalkAbout” Programme: Healthcare Workforce Recruitment & Staffing Focus

Autumn TT promoIn WorkAccord’s Summer series of Tuesday TalkAbouts, we introduced the concept of “waypoints” as those points on a journey where we can pause, take stock, and choose the direction we will follow for the next stage. As the COVID-19 pandemic response has rapidly escalated, it seems that we might have rushed through several of those waypoints and might now be asking, “What comes next?”

Many within the healthcare recruitment and staffing sector are experiencing a sense of considerable uncertainty, which may become costly. For some, it has been a case of having been so busy that there has not been time to reflect on what has happened. For others, things have gone unnervingly quiet.

In our Autumn series of Tuesday TalkAbouts, we will be looking at points of continuity and change for healthcare recruitment & staffing professionals and asking, “What does it now take to be Leaders in the World of Work?”

We will also be working throughout this series to develop the Tuesday TalkAbout format to provide participants with an enhanced range of on-line/off-line and synchronous/asynchronous learning opportunities and resources. We’ll be keeping the free on-demand webinars while developing the live sessions to provide more interaction and opportunity for discussion.

I’m delighted, therefore, to extend to all a warm invitation to participate in this exciting collaborative project.

Our Autumn programme of seven free webinars is outlined below.

1. Platforms (21/04/2020)

Our first Tuesday TalkAbout presents an “under the hood” look at Recruitment Platforms for Recruitment & Staffing Professionals.

What are they? Where do they fit in the classification of recruitment & staffing services? How do we “read” them? What are some of the opportunities and risks associated with their use?

2. A Healthcare Workforce that Nobody “Owns” (28/04/2020)

A healthcare workforce is a complex, multi-actor (multi-nodal) system that possibly nobody “owns”.

What are its governance challenges? What do these challenges mean for stakeholders, including Recruitment & Staffing Professionals aspiring to be Leaders in the World of Work? How can they engage more effectively with the workforce to enhance the value of the contribution they make?

3. Healthcare Worker Engagement Models (5/05/2020)

Healthcare worker engagement models come in many different forms.

What models of healthcare worker engagement are most relevant for Recruitment & Staffing Professionals? How can they distinguish between different models to choose the ones that are the most suitable? What challenges do procurement approaches pose to the successful engagement of health workers with their workforce? How can Recruitment & Staffing Professionals meet those challenges?

4. Aged Care Workforce Update (12/05/2020)

The Royal Commission Into Aged Care Quality & Safety has been running since October 2018.

What progress has been made so far? Who making submissions? What themes are emerging that will be significant for Recruitment & Staffing Professionals working in the Aged Care sector? What will happen next? And how can we make a submission?

5. Telemedicine & Recruitment (19/05/2020)

Social distancing measures under the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic presented many challenges to the way we have traditionally thought healthcare and health workforce recruitment should be practised.

What are the consequences for healthcare workforce recruitment and for Recruitment & Staffing Professionals working in the healthcare sector? In this Tuesday TalkAbout we will review some of the current literature and take a look at some recent practice developments in the field of Telemedicine.

6. Collaborative Supply Models: Concept (26/05/2020)

Collaborative Supply Models or “Networks” may provide useful answers to many of the challenges presently facing healthcare workforce structure and governance.

What form could they take? What role might Recruitment & Staffing Professionals working in the healthcare sector play in their development? In this Tuesday TalkAbout, we’ll look at some of the collaborative supply or network models that have been developed and deployed in Australia and overseas. We will begin to explore how they might evolve to create new opportunities for Recruitment & Staffing Professionals responding to a disrupted workforce environment.

7. Collaborative Supply Models: Topical Challenges (2/06/2020)

In this Tuesday TalkAbout, we’ll build on the concept of a Collaborative Supply Model which we developed In the previous session for Recruitment & Staffing Professionals working in the healthcare sector. We’ll focus on four topical challenges:

  • Candidate connection & protection
  • Competition
  • Risk & liability
  • Governance

You can register for this webinar here.

Let’s talk again soon!

Andrew C. Wood

 

 

 

 

Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality & Safety seeking submissions. Might the recruitment & staffing sector bring something fresh to the table?

Aged Care CommissionThe Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality & Safety continues to seek submissions to its December 2019 Consultation Paper.  Submissions can now be made until the end of April 2020.

The  January closing date, as originally proposed, was awful, with many people distracted by holidays, bushfires, storms, floods and return to schol.  But the Royal Commission has recently indicated that it will accept submisisons until the end of April. So, there might still be time to engage!

It would be marvellous to hear what contribution the recruitment and staffing sector could make to the design of a more effective aged care workforce.

That’s because one of the key questions on which submisisons are being sought is:

How could the aged care and health systems work together to deliver care which better meets the complex health needs of older people, including dementia care as well as palliative and end of life care? What are the best models for these forms of care?

It’s an important question. Sadly, the Consultation Paper puts it in the context of numerous system deficiencies.

[The current system] struggles to attract and retain sufficient numbers of skilled, knowledgeable and competent staff (p.3).

…low levels of clinical staff and personal carers in residential care and poor interfaces with the health system mean that some people may not receive the level of nursing, allied health and personal care services they need and would otherwise have had access to within the community or from the health system. (p.13).

The majority of staff are personal care workers rather than nurses or allied health professionals.  (p.14).

The delivery of services to rural and remote geographical regions in Australia is complex and differs for every community. It is impacted by multiple socioeconomic factors and the physical environment, such as the high cost of goods, utilities, transport, fuel, food and vehicles. There is often limited access to most government services and a shortage of staff to support those services. (p.18).

I reckon it would make a huge difference to address the challenge of designing a better aged care workforce from the perspective of appreciating the resources we do have. And in that context, it would be marvellous to hear about the solutions that innovative and resourceful staffing & recruitment professionals could suggest!

So, I’d like urge the recruitment and staffing sector to engage with the questions that are being asked and see if there’s something fresh that can be brought to the table – befitting “Leaders in the World of Work”.

How about it?

 

Andrew C. Wood

“Tuesday TalkAbout” Summer 2020 Program to Address Recruitment & Staffing Sector “Waypoints”

Tuesday TalkAbout takes a new direction for its Summer 2020 Program of free, short webinars, as we discuss some larger themes at work in the recruitment and staffing sector.

Now, I certainly don’t claim to be a seer or a futurist. I observe and interpret. So, I’m not going to attempt to predict the course of the decade or anything like that.

Instead, I’ll describe the “waypoints”, which I think the recruitment & staffing sector in Australia and New Zealand has reached in eight key areas. ‘

A “waypoint” can be understood as a place on a route or pathway, a stopping point, or a point at which one’s course can be changed.

What the future holds from that point forward largely flows from the decisions and commitments which recruitment & staffing professionals make for their own organisations and professional lives – either intentionally or by default.

The observations and insights that I hope to share reflect experience gained over four decades in legal and workforce consulting practice and in recent work done with RCSA, designing its new Code for Professional Conduct, its grievance intervention guidelines & protocols, its StaffSure certification program, and many of its key resources and templates.

The eight key areas we’ll be discussing are:

1. Professional Conduct (21st January)

RCSA’s new Code for Professional Conduct has been authorised by the ACCC to commence on 8 August 2020. How is it different from previous codes or other industry codes? Why is it different? What statement does it make about emerging professionalism? How might recruitment & staffing professionals respond to it? How is it enforced and administered?

This webinar has now been archived. Please contact me if you would like a link.

2. Quality Management (28th January)

What does “quality” mean in the context of the work undertaken by recruitment & staffing professionals as labour market enablers and intermediaries. Does the ISO 9001 definition of “quality” say it all? How well does the “customer focus” requirement stand up to the professional conduct responsibilities of recruitment & staffing professionals? Is quality perceived as outcome or experience? Is it even an either/or question?

This webinar has now been archived. Please contact me if you would like a link.

3. Risk Management (4th February)

We know (at least I hope we do) that risk is defined for the purposes of risk management and quality management standards as the “effect of uncertainty on objectives”. But how might risk be categorised to be more manageable for recruitment & staffing professionals? What sorts of risk do recruitment & staffing professionals face in 2020? At what points does risk intersect with professionalism and quality? How can risk be managed to minimise its effects on professional and quality objectives?

This webinar has now been archived. Please contact me if you would like a link.

4. Collaboration (11th February)

What is “collaboration”, really? Why is it important for recruitment & staffing professionals in 2020? Is collaboration possible with customers and clients? Candidates? Competitors? Consultants? If so, how is achieved? How is it managed and maintained?

This webinar has now been archived. Please contact me if you would like a link.

5. Doing Business (18th February)

Something is wrong if you’re not upgrading your terms of business at least as frequently as your mobile phone! Wonder why you’re getting pushback from clients who won’t pay you that “introduction fee”, or who won’t sign up to your “all-care-no-responsibility” conditions? Terms of business modelled on 1980s recruitment & staffing practices and 1980s legal culture are no longer viable. In this session, we explain why and talk about what you can do about that.

This webinar has now been archived. Please contact me if you would like a link.

6. Conflict & Dispute Resolution (25th February)

Even for those who might be energised by conflict, there comes a point when stocks of energy and finances to meet the crushing cost of feeding conflict, run low. What is your conflict/ dispute profile? Do you still handle business disputes like it’s the 1980s and you’re a bank? Or have you found a better way? What are your options in 2020? What distinguishes the way you handle conflict and disputes as “professional”?

View the recorded Conflict & Dispute Resolution “Waypoint” webinar here

7. Employment Shaping (3rd March)

What is the difference between legitimate employment shaping and sham contracting or avoidance? How much flexibility is there to shape an employment relationship to suit labour market conditions in 2020? What are the limits? How do you know if you are approaching or transgressing them? Are there any “golden rules”. If so, what are they and how do you apply them?

View the recorded Employment Shaping “Waypoint” webinar here

8. Independent contractor on-hire (10th March)

What are the main challenges to independent contractor on-hire in 2020? Is the business integration test still reliable? What investigations should a recruitment & staffing professional undertake to ensure that independent contractor engagement and on-hire models are compliant with a wide range of regulatory requirements and are not exploitative?

Register for the Independent Contractor On-Hire “Waypoint” webinar here

I do hope you’ll join me when WorkAccord’s Tuesday TalkAbout Summer Program returns at 8:30 am AEDT on Tuesday 21 January 2020 and I’d love to learn of any questions you might have in advance.

 

Andrew C. Wood

Labour Hire Licensing Laws: Do they apply outside their home states?

ExtraterritorialityQueensland, South Australia, and Victoria have now all passed separate labour hire licensing laws[1].

All three acts contain provisions that attempt to extend their application beyond state boundaries.[2] The exact wording in each case is different but basically, they attempt to extend the laws to the maximum extent of the legislative power of their respective Parliaments. No one knows for sure exactly what that is because it hasn’t been tested in this context. But it seems generally correct to say that, provided there is some real connection (or nexus), with the home state, the laws are capable of applying in some other state (or country). Continue reading

Here’s What I’m Thinking About: “Labour Supply Chains”

This is my first attempt at video. Please treat it kindly. I clearly need a director, hair and make-up!

Nevertheless, I do hope you’ll join me for our next Tuesday TalkAbout on 19th November at 8:30 am AEDT, when we’ll discuss LAbour Supply Chains.

Here’s a link to register for the webinar. it’s free and it’s live.

https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_wttK2Q2gS_eo1UfY2dIiOw

Andrew C. Wood

Let’s Shed Light on Recruitment Fees!

 

Slide1Temp-to-Perm Fees, Agency-Switching Fees, Introduction Fees and Release Fees.

I hope you’ll join me when we shed light on the topic of Recruitment Fees in two separate webinars planned for Thursday 22nd November and Thursday 29th November at 10:30 am AEDT.

In our first webinar, you’ll learn how to make binding and enforceable recruitment fee agreements.

In our second webinar, you’ll learn how to manage fee recruitment disputes ethically and professionally.

You can find out more about the webinars in my Recruiters’ Casebook blog here.

 

Andrew C. Wood, Hon FRCSA (Life)