The outcome of a recent court case has set a legal precedent that will provide greater protection against unfair dismissal and loss of entitlements for cleaners, reported The Sydney Morning Herald on 12 July 2016.
The Fair Work Commission has awarded 19 cleaners $70,000 in redundancy payments and entitlements which they lost when they were ‘transferred to a new company after their former employer lost a cleaning contract with two Sydney hotels’.
“The case was hugely significant, not just for the 19 cleaners who’ve now received $70,000 in redundancy payments, but for the legal precedent it sets,” said United Voice NSW secretary Mel Gatfield.
“Workers who are transferred over to a new contractor now have greater protection from unfair dismissal, losing their parental leave, and being denied flexible work arrangements. This is particularly significant for United Voice members, who are typically employed in contracting industries.”
Ms Gatfield also added that “19 of 54 housekeepers made redundant last year were union members who did not have the resources to fight their unfair treatment on their own”.
“Of the 54 housekeepers made redundant, only the 19 who were union members won redundancy payments in the FWC,” Ms Gatfield explained.
‘Sodexo Australia, which dismissed the cleaners after it lost a cleaning contract, argued it was relieved of having to pay full redundancy entitlements because it had found the employees “acceptable” alternative employment. The Crowne Plaza Coogee and Crowne Plaza Potts Point awarded the cleaning contract previously held by Sodexo to Challenger Hospitality late last year’, noted The Sydney Morning Herald.
Sodexo employees were told that “their services were no longer wanted” before they were re-employed by Challenger Hospitality.
However, ‘with less than 12 months of service with the new employer, the employees complained they were unable to request flexible working arrangements because their tenure with the previous contractor was not recognised’.
“Offers of re-employment to some of the 19 employees could not objectively constitute as acceptable employment in circumstances where they were dismissed, without reason, within weeks of commencing their employment, or were forced to resign because of misrepresentations made to them as to maintenance of the same terms and conditions of employment,” said Fair Work Commission deputy president Peter Sams.
“Such outcomes were unconscionable. They were unfair and unreasonable.”
Mr Shrestha, who has worked as a cleaner since 2013, said he was happy with the Fair Work Commission decision.
“The agency which did not get its contract renewed wanted to get away with not paying the entitlements we were supposed to get,” he said. “I believe the decision by the Fair Work Commission to reward us with the entitlements sends a message to those people who do not wish to comply with the rules and regulations.”