The term, ‘non-refundable deposit’ is often used by business owners, but just because a deposit is referred to as ‘non-refundable’ does not mean that it actually is. Conversely, as a business owner, a deposit can be non-refundable if certain criteria are met.
Business owners need to be careful in how they charge a non-refundable deposit to ensure that it meets the relevant criteria. Non-refundable deposits are intended to protect a business in circumstances of sudden cancellation and to compensate the business for the time, effort and money expended up to that point. Therefore, it is crucial for a business to ensure that the non-refundable deposit that they charge in these circumstances is reasonable and proportionate with reference to protecting their legitimate business interests and is not excessive or used as a ‘penalty’ against a customer or client. What will be considered reasonable and proportionate will depend on the specific circumstances and will be different on a case-by-case basis.
Not only does a business need to ensure that a non-refundable deposit is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, but they must also ensure they disclose all relevant information regarding the non-refundable deposit to their customers or clients. It is crucial for a business to disclose the terms of the non-refundable deposit in the correct way otherwise they may be seen to be engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct, which is against the law.
At a minimum, the business must disclose the terms of a non-refundable deposit in a Terms and Conditions document (or similar) which is provided to the customer or client at the time of, or prior to, engaging them.
Even better, the business should also seek to obtain an acknowledgement from the client or customer that the non-refundable deposit is reasonable and proportionate in protecting the business’ legitimate business interests. Again, this can be incorporated into the Terms and Conditions document being used by the business. You can also reiterate this to the client or customer when you request the payment of the deposit from them. Transparency is key!
But how does it work in real life?
By way of an example – let’s say you are a photographer who charges $300 for a photo shoot, with a non-refundable deposit of $100 payable prior to confirming the booking. Your Terms and Conditions (which your client signed and returned prior to engaging you) stats that the deposit is non-refundable and outlines that it is calculated with reference to the actual costs that your business incurs. Your client cancels the booking two days before the shoot. They allege that your business cannot retain the non-refundable deposit. In these circumstances, whether you can retain the deposit would depend on (as a minimum):
Without knowing any further information, on the above facts alone, it would appear that the deposit wouldbe non-refundable, as the document requirements appear to have been met and $100 may likely be considered to be a reasonable and proportionate amount.
What happens if a business fails to disclose the terms of the non-refundable deposit or doesn’t take the time to ensure they are charging a reasonable and proportionate amount? The customer or client may be entitled to get that deposit back and the business will not be entitled to be compensated for the loss they have suffered for the time, effort and costs incurred up until that point in time.
If you are a business owner who wants to charge non-refundable deposits, then you should obtain advice from a specialist business lawyer regarding the drafting of your Terms and Conditions and an assessment of the reasonableness of the amount that you want to charge. Unfortunately, this is another circumstance where you cannot use terms that you have sourced from Google, as they are not customised to your business, which will affect the likelihood of the enforceability of the provisions.
Coronavirus or 'COVID-19' continues to spread across the globe, with the World Health Organisation (WHO) referring to the epidemic as a “public health emergency”.
With Australia’s reliance on China for providing goods and materials for the construction sector higher than ever before, many of Enterprise Legal’s construction clients have started raising concerns about how the outbreak could affect their projects, big and small – and when it inevitably does, what will their rights and potential liabilities be?
Most Developers/Principals of construction projects care about three main things when it comes to their project delivery, that is - will the project be:
The recent shortage of materials from China as a result of factory closure and import limitations could see Developers and Principals alike exposed on all three of the above criteria.
Some key factors for Developers/Principals who have current projects or projects that are at the ‘sign-up’ phase to consider include:
Conversely, the risk to Contractors are in the reverse. For example:
Enterprise Legal’s advice is ‘be alert, but not alarmed’. Make sure that you arm yourself with the knowledge that you’re legally protected and the best way to do this is to see an expert construction lawyer to get guidance and advice on what the best way forward is for your specific project, so as to mitigate any liability or other exposure under the Contract or otherwise.
Most importantly, by arming yourself with the relevant information and taking practical steps without delay, you will maximise the chance of successfully delivering the project, which is a win-win for both Developer/Principal and Contractors alike.
If you are currently a party to a construction project or planning to sign an agreement in the near future, contact Enterprise Legal’s Construction Law Team for advice today! Ask to speak to our firm director and dedicated building and construction specialist, Sharné Lategan.
Always remember, prevention is better than cure – and being proactive is the best next step you can take!
☎️ (07) 4646 2621
✉️ Submit an Online Request
If you’re looking to enter into a domestic building contract for the construction of a new home or renovations to your existing home, there are many things you’ll need to think about, from the flooring to your paint choices. In addition to all of your aesthetic choices, there are plenty of things you specifically need to consider when it comes to your contract itself, as this will be the backbone of the entire construction project.
After you enter into a building contract, you will generally have a period of time where you are required to provide the builder with materials including proof of ownership, proof of loan approval and relevant building approvals.
If you need to obtain finance approval prior to being able to commit to the project, make sure the contract documents accurately reflect this to avoid a scenario where you are contractually bound to proceed with the contract, regardless of finance approval. Also make sure you clarify up-front who is responsible to obtain building approval, as often builders advise they will ‘assist’ but the ultimate responsible may lay with the home owner, which is not ideal.
Progress payments are payments made to the builder at certain stages of the construction process, which should be clearly set out and identified in your contract. It is important to ensure you are aware of what is payable and at what time and that your contract does not impose any restrictions on progress payments. It is arguably more important that you make sure the work you are paying for has been carried out, in the manner required by the contract.
Your building contract may be a ‘fixed-price’ or ‘cost-plus’ building contract. A fixed price contract is one where the total price is fixed, barring any variations, delays, or extenuating circumstances. The other form of building contract is ‘cost-plus’ where you may be given an estimated final price but the contractor will obtain the materials and services through the building process and pass the costs onto you, as well as charge their own time by the hour. This can become costly quite quickly, so it is always our recommendation that a fixed price contract be entered into, to minimise the risks of ‘blow outs’ to home owners.
When negotiating the construction contract, it is very important that the contract contains a clause that variations only be allowed where it is agreed to in writing by both parties, prior to the work the subject of the variation being carried out.
What can often happen is a simple site conversation where the home owner innocently changes a product or selection, thinking it will be the same cost, can end up resulting in a very costly exercise for the home owner. Where builders know that variations have to be subject to writing, they will make decisions more carefully and explain them to home owners’ in more depth, as ultimately the risks in those circumstances lies with the builders.
The defects liability period is the period of time where the builder is required to return to repair any defects. This will usually start at the date of practical completion. It is important to check your contract to determine the length of any defect liability period before you enter into your contract to ensure that it is likely to be sufficient, builders will often try for a six month liability period where as twelve months is industry standard.
Prime cost items are fixtures and fittings that may be listed in the contract but not specifically identified and costed – usually because the exact type was not decided on at the time of signing – so the price is only an estimate. Ideally, you should avoid prime cost items as much as possible by deciding on as much as possible as early as you can. Provisional sum items are those that are listed in the contract for possible additional work where a builder is only able to make an estimate of the cost at the time. Items such as these should be avoided where possible as it can increase your overall costs.
Sometimes, however both prime cost and provisional sum items are unavoidable, and in these instances we recommend home owners negotiate a certain ‘capped amount’ with the builder, to ensure builder accountability in product estimation and selection.
Before construction begins, it is important that your builder undertakes appropriate site investigations to determine the soil type, rocks that may need to be removed, and other things that could lead to unexpected price variations later on. Your contract should include warranties relating to any necessary site investigations, and it is very important that all these latent condition issues are covered off before hand, so as to avoid contract price blow out.
The date for practical completion is the date that the construction is scheduled to be completed, barring any unexpected delays. This date should not be left blank on your contract and it should be a realistic estimation of when the project is required to be completed.
Something to consider when entering a contract is whether you want to include a liquidated damages clause. Liquidated damages are a set amount per day that the builder will pay you for every day past the date for practical completion that the work is not finished.
We always recommend that a liquidated damages amount be specified in the contract, because it will motivate the builder to complete the project on time. If there are no liquidated damages amount in the contract, the main remedies available to home owners for late delivery is a breach of contract claim, and most builders know this is a lengthy and expensive process so home owners are unlikely to go down this route.
While it might seem obvious, it is important to ensure that your builder has the appropriate licences for the work they are contracted to do. You should also check whether their work is of a quality you are expecting and whether they have received formal orders from QBCC to rectify defective work. If there are a large number of these orders, you may want to steer clear of the relevant builder and engage a different builder instead. Always ask for references as well, and make sure you contact the references or do standard google review searches, to ensure previous good experiences with that specific builder.
To ensure you fully understand your contract and that there aren’t any hidden surprises, the team at Enterprise Legal can help.
Make sure you contact us before you enter into the relevant construction contract, and we will gladly assist in the review and negotiation of same:
☎️ (07) 4646 2621
✉️ Submit an Online Request
Each year the Fair Work Commission reviews the minimum wages contained in all Modern Awards and this year it announced a 1.75% increase to minimum wages on 19 June 2020. Whilst the wage increases usually apply from 1 July for all Modern Awards, this year the Fair Work Commission postponed a number of increases to industries hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. All Modern Awards were broken up to three groups, with Group 1 increases starting on 1 July 2020, Group 2 commencing on 1 November 2020 and lastly, Group 3 commencing on 1 February 2021. The full list of awards that will be increasing on November 1 include:
Aluminium Industry Award
Animal Care and Veterinary Services Award
Aquaculture Industry Award
Asphalt Industry Award
Black Coal Mining Industry Award
Book Industry Award
Broadcasting, Recorded Entertainment and Cinemas Award
Building and Construction General On-site Award
Business Equipment Award
Car Parking Award
Cement, Lime and Quarrying Award
Clerks—Private Sector Award
Coal Export Terminals Award
Concrete Products Award
Contract Call Centres Award
Cotton Ginning Award
Dredging Industry Award
Educational Services (Post-Secondary Education) Award
Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award
Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award
Gardening and Landscaping Services Award
Graphic Arts, Printing and Publishing Award
Higher Education Industry-Academic Staff-Award
Higher Education Industry-General Staff-Award
Hydrocarbons Field Geologists Award
Hydrocarbons Industry (Upstream) Award
Joinery and Building Trades Award
Journalists Published Media Award
Labour Market Assistance Industry Award
Legal Services Award
Local Government Industry Award
Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award
Marine Towage Award
Maritime Offshore Oil and Gas Award
Market and Social Research Award
Meat Industry Award
Mining Industry Award
Mobile Crane Hiring Award
Oil Refining and Manufacturing Award
Passenger Vehicle Transportation Award
Pest Control Industry Award
Pharmaceutical Industry Award
Plumbing and Fire Sprinklers Award
Port Authorities Award
Ports, Harbours and Enclosed Water Vessels Award
Poultry Processing Award
Premixed Concrete Award
Professional Diving Industry (Industrial) Award
Professional Employees Award
Rail Industry Award
Real Estate Industry Award
Road Transport (Long Distance Operations) Award
Road Transport and Distribution Award
Salt Industry Award
Seafood Processing Award
Seagoing Industry Award
Security Services Award
Stevedoring Industry Award
Storage Services and Wholesale Award
Sugar Industry Award
Supported Employment Services Award
Telecommunications Services Award
Textile, Clothing, Footwear and Associated Industries Award
Timber Industry Award
Transport (Cash in Transit) Award
Waste Management Award
Wool Storage, Sampling and Testing Award
The third group of awards that will increase on 1 February 2021 include:
Air Pilots Award
Aircraft Cabin Crew Award
Airline Operations-Ground Staff Award
Airport Employees Award
Alpine Resorts Award
Amusement, Events and Recreation Award
Commercial Sales Award
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Industry Award
Fast Food Industry Award
Fitness Industry Award
General Retail Industry Award
Hair and Beauty Industry Award
Horse and Greyhound Training Award
Hospitality Industry (General) Award
Live Performance Award
Mannequins and Models Award
Marine Tourism and Charter Vessels Award
Professional Diving Industry (Recreational) Award
Racing Clubs Events Award
Racing Industry Ground Maintenance Award
Registered and Licensed Clubs Award
Restaurant Industry Award
Sporting Organisations Award
Travelling Shows Award
Vehicle Repair, Services and Retail Award
Wine Industry Award
To learn more about the Fair Work Commission’s wage increase or to speak to one of our Workplace Relations specialists, contact Enterprise Legal today.
Obviously one of the biggest areas of uncertainty regarding the impacts of COVID-19 is on staff. Our expert Employment Law Team has put together the following overview, regarding standing-down employees and making employees redundant as a result of the current pandemic.
Pursuant to sections 524 and 525 of the Fair Work Act, employers can stand employees down without pay during a period in which the employee cannot usefully be employed because of:
During a legitimate stand down period, employees do not need to be paid but they will accrue leave in the usual way.
Whether a particular employee can be usefully employed is a question of fact to be determined having regard to the circumstances that face the individual employer and the specific employee. “Usefully employed” has not been defined, but Courts have in the past determined that if an employer is able to obtain some benefit or value for work that could be performed by the employee, then the stand down provisions will not apply.
For example, let’s say a local take away shop has to ‘shut its doors’ due to a government lock-down proclamation, then it may be reasonable to stand the front-line employees down without pay, but employees who do accounts, bookkeeping, marketing and alike may not be eligible to be stood down because there may still exist an opportunity for them to be ‘usefully employed’.
Awards, Enterprise Bargaining Agreements and Employment Agreements could alter the statutory position above, so EL always cautions clients against taking an action as drastic as stand down without pay until considered legal advice tailored to that client’s business and the specific employee(s) have been obtained.
Because of the significant impacts stand down without pay can have on employees, EL would treat such a step with extreme caution. Fair Work guides at the moment are saying that ‘best practice’ would be to discuss different options with each employee, and consider letting employees take leave on the basis of paid leave such as sick, annual, long-service etc. where available, or to allow them to work from home where possible.
However, EL recognises that sometimes when there is a stoppage of work, standing employees down without pay may be the only option available to our clients, and in those circumstances we encourage clients to contact us for a tailored, short-form advice from $1,350.00 (including GST).
Some EL clients may see their business take such a downturn that they need to consider making employee(s) positions redundant.
Essentially, a redundancy could be a potential strategy for employers where an employee’s position is no longer required by the employer due to restructure or operational changes in the employer’s business, which renders the position unnecessary. The work or role must no longer be required to be performed by any employee.
The Fair Work Act has strict requirements that employers must meet prior to qualifying for the redundancy provisions, and a relevant Employment Agreement, Award or Enterprise Bargaining Agreement may create complimentary and/or additional onerous obligations on employers in this regard.
Given the current climate, EL’s advice is to approach any redundancy decision with caution, and always ensure you have sought tailored legal advice so as to minimise any risk or unnecessary exposure to your business.
Our expert Employment Law team can also assist your business by developing a range of customised and appropriate policies and documents – please contact us to obtain a fixed fee quote for these services. In the interim, our team has prepared a generic Coronavirus Policy for your free download and use, to ensure that your business is on the front-foot.
The application of the existing law to the current situation is rapidly-developing, so we encourage all clients to ensure they regularly check our platforms for updates or to contact us directly with any concerns that they have.
At Enterprise Legal, we always say that ‘prevention is better than cure’. So when it comes to commercial, industrial or retail lease disputes, the best way to prevent them is to ensure you understand what you are signing up for in the first place and to negotiate some protections at the time of entering into your lease. After all, a lease is typically one of the biggest financial obligations that your business may need to commit to, keeping in mind that you are usually committed to your obligations for a minimum of three or five years!
Whether you’re a Landlord or Tenant, here are our top five tips to keep in mind when entering into your next lease:
Quite often, before a lease is prepared, the parties will sign a short document or letter outlining the key terms of the deal. This document is usually referred to as a ‘Heads of Agreement’ or ‘Offer to Lease’ and is often prepared by the real estate agent managing the deal.
Although usually an Offer to Lease is not binding on the parties, it forms the basis of the formal lease terms. This stage of lease negotiations is the best time to negotiate key terms, before either party incurs the expense of preparing and negotiating formal lease documents. If either party seeks to amend terms that are agreed in a Letter of Offer after formal lease documents have been prepared, it can create friction between the Landlord and Tenant at a very early stage in their association.
We recommended that you seek legal advice on the terms of an Offer to Lease, to ensure a smoother lease negotiation process and to avoid the potential for a dispute.
A frequent issue in lease negotiations is whether a Tenant will have the exclusive right to operate their business type (specified as the ‘permitted use’) in the centre/complex. This means that it’s very important for a Landlord to consider whether any Tenant’s proposed use conflicts with any rights the Landlord has already given to existing Tenants in the centre/complex.
A more commonly overlooked issue around permitted use is which party is responsible for ensuring that the intended use can lawfully be conducted from the premises. The widely accepted position in leasing matters is that the Tenant is responsible for all aspects of ensuring their intended use can be carried out from the relevant premises. A Landlord will typically include protections in the Lease under which the Landlord expressly states they do not warrant or guarantee that the premises will be fit for the Tenant’s intended use, and further that the Tenant is obliged to obtain all necessary consents/approvals (i.e. liquor licences, council approval etc) to run their business from the premises.
Landlords should always ensure this protection is included in their Lease and Tenants should understand that it is a matter for them to ensure that the premises will be fit for their specific purpose. To avoid disputes, a Tenant should make enquiries early (prior to signing a lease!) to ensure they can lawfully conduct their business from the premises. Failure to do this can result in having to comply with notices from applicable authorities (eg. Council), which can be extremely expensive!
Another common area of dispute relates to responsibility for fixing certain equipment (such as air-conditioning equipment) in the premises if they need repairing.
A lease should cover off on the responsibility of the parties to maintain equipment, and to repair/replace it when it breaks. Typically, a Tenant is responsible for ‘wear and tear’-related repairs, whereas a Landlord will be required to attend to all repairs or replacement that are of a ‘capital nature’ provided that the Tenant has regularly serviced or maintained that equipment during the Term and has not deliberately or wilfully contributed to the damage. However, that will not always be the case and it is important that both parties check the relevant clauses in their Lease to understand their obligations. It is also beneficial (especially for the Tenant) to take steps to understand the condition of any relevant equipment (such as air conditioning) at the time of entry into the Lease.
Tenants in particular should always consider the specific wording of any clause in their Lease that deals with insurance obligations, to ensure the Landlord’s requirements will be commercially acceptable to the Tenant, especially in light of their intended business use.
Some practical examples are:
Landlords of multi-tenant centres or complexes (eg. shopping centres or strip-malls) typically include clauses which give them the right to relocate Tenants to comparable locations within the centre/complex, or to redevelop or demolish part of all of the centre/complex.
Tenants should always carefully consider the specific wording of these clauses and the practical implications. At a minimum, the clause should stipulate that any relocation must be to a comparable location and it should deal with how the rent will be treated in those circumstances, but as a further step, the Tenant should consider whether they want to (where practical) have the right to return to the original location. It is also important to contemplate who will be responsible for the costs of the Tenant’s fit-out in the new location in these circumstances.
A well drafted and well-understood lease will go a long way to avoiding a dispute arising between the Landlord and the Tenant. To avoid a costly dispute, engage the expert Enterprise Legal Business Law team to help you with your next lease negotiation:
Fixed term contracts are back in the spotlight after a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission in Michael Nasr v Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd  FWC 2802 (Nasr), where the Commission held that an employee engaged over a 30-month period under eight separate and successive fixed term contracts, was not dismissed within the meaning of section 386(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) when his last contract came to an end.
Why is this important? Well, as a general rule, employers need to be very careful when engaging workers on rolling fixed-term contracts, even if there are legitimate business reasons to do so, because there is the risk that such contracts build an expectation that the employment relationship (not just the employment contract) will continue following the expiry of the contract, leading to potential unfair dismissal claims when the final contract is not renewed.
The decision in Nasr sheds some useful light on how employers may still be protected under section 386(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in circumstances where an employee’s employment is terminated at the end of a fixed term contract.
Following a period of casual engagement as a labour hire worker with confectionery and food giant Mondelez, Mr Nasr was subsequently employed directly by the company over a 30-month period under eight separate and successive fixed term contracts (ranging in duration from one month to 12 months), prior to his final contract expiring on 31 December 2020.
Following the cessation of his employment, Mr Nasr subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim and sought to be reinstated in his position on the basis that by his eight contract he had a reasonable expectation of ongoing or permanent employment. Mondelez, on the other hand, claimed that there had been no dismissal within the meaning of s386(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) as Mr Nasr’s employment had not been terminated at the initiative of Mondelez. Instead, his employment came to an end at the expiry of his contract, which is excluded from the meaning of dismissal under section 386(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The Commission held that Mr Nasr’s application had no jurisdiction to proceed, on the grounds that his employment had not ceased at the initiative of his employer and Mondelez were subsequently protected under section 386(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The Commission relied on the decision of Khayam v Navitas English Pty Ltd which confirms the principles in determining whether a dismissal occurred ‘at the initiative of the employer’ when an employment contract reaches its expiry date. Such principles include (inter alia):
The Commission found that each of Mr Nasr’s contracts contained a clear expiry date and expressly stated that Mr Nasr’s employment (not just the contract) would terminate at the end of the relevant period, and also that there was no guarantee of further employment beyond the expiry date. It was also important that Mr Nasr was not working in the same position under each of the contracts, moving between departments and in various roles which further supported the Commission’s views that the contracts were necessary based on the genuine operational requirements of the company and that there was a real indication that Mr Nasr’s engagement was limited to the scope of each contract.
While the Commission recognised that Mr Nasr had been employed under successive fixed-term contracts for a “greater period than is ordinarily the case”, the Commission accepted that there were genuine operational reasons for him to be engaged under the rolling fixed term contracts.
It is encouraging to see the Fair Work Commission recognise and uphold the genuine and useful role fixed term contracts have in the workforce, however it is also a very important reminder to employers that fixed term contracts need to be done right or the exposure could be significant. Had Mondelez’s contract not been well drafted, the company would have no doubt been exposed and the Commission has set the bar for what is required in order to be protected under section 386(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
If you’re wanting to have a chat about whether your current fixed term agreements are up to scratch, or if you would like some guidance on the most appropriate way to engage your employees, contact our dedicated Workplace Relations team today:
☎️ | (07) 4646 2621✉️ | Submit an Online Request
It is difficult to know what has spread more prevalently over the last two weeks – COVID-19 itself or the vast, vast amounts of information, misinformation, tips, tricks, commentary, opinions, guidance etc. regarding COVID-19! Like all things at EL, we don’t seek to ‘add to the noise’ by replicating some of the great content that has already been published, but instead, our focus is on assisting business owners to implement practical, easily-adoptable strategies to help lower the immediate impact of the Corona-situation on their business.
So, you own or manage a business? Read on to find out what you can do…
Obviously one of the biggest areas of uncertainty regarding the impacts of COVID-19 is on staff. Our expert Employment Law Team has put together the following overview here, regarding standing-down employees and making employees redundant as a result of the current pandemic.
Of course, it is imperative for businesses to understand that the application of the current law to their employees can significantly differ on a case-by-case basis, so be very wary of adopting generic advice. Our Employment Team is across this topic and can provide properly-considered, tailored advice to ensure your specific business is covered.
We can also assist by developing a range of customised and appropriate policies and documents – please contact us to obtain a fixed fee quote for these services. In the interim, our team has prepared a generic Coronavirus Policy for your free download and use, to ensure that your business is on the front-foot.
The application of the existing law to the current situation is rapidly-developing, so we encourage all clients to ensure they regularly check our platforms for updates.
Brick and mortar stores are already suffering, with people (rightly) avoiding unnecessary trips to the shops. If you run a business with a shopfront, we strongly recommend that you engage us ASAP to commence negotiations with your landlord regarding potential rent reductions, delayed rent payments or adopting other mitigation strategies. There are plenty of commercial proposals that can be put to landlords during this time and reaching early agreement on these matters will assist businesses to survive and landlords to keep their shops tenanted. The terms of your lease may also offer some assistance at this time.
Face-to-face service-based businesses will unfortunately suffer hardest from COVID-19, particularly those in the wedding, events and conferences sector. Business operators and customers alike are shortly going to have to make some tough decisions about cancelling contracts and the implications around refunds and re-bookings will be important. Contact EL ASAP so that we can advise you on your legal obligations in this regard and provide you with practical, commercial suggestions for ensuring the long-term survival of your business.
The EL team is of the view that businesses need to be careful not to assume that they can ‘simply weather the storm’ of Corona, by holding tight for a few months.. The reality is that no-one really knows the length of the economic disruption that Covid-19 will cause, so our advice is for all businesses to stop and consider how they can innovate within their business during this time. Already, there are plenty of businesses leading the charge in this regard, with home delivery, new product development (hello family roll – Google it if you haven’t come across it yet!) and new delivery methods being adopted by small business in an effort to leverage opportunity from an otherwise difficult situation. There has never been a better time to evaluate your businesses’ strengths and weaknesses and pivot so that it is heading in the right direction!
Unless you are a doctor or a scientist, the number one way that you can help society at this time is to be a socially-responsible human being, who adopts and promotes common sense at all times! This extends to making sensible, balanced decisions for the ongoing viability of your business and not ‘sticking your head in the sand’ about the situation.
The Enterprise Legal team are not your average lawyers – we are able to assist you with navigating this challenging time for your business, by bringing our uniquely commercial approach to the legalities of the situation! Call our team today.
Let’s be honest – legal entities and business structures can sound like a pretty dry and complicated topic. We can’t really sugar coat that, but we can tell you that if it’s not something that is addressed and set up to suit your business, you could be missing out on some very important advantages, and exposing your business and your assets to more risk than is necessary. Stick with us on this topic – it can be the difference between a business that thrives and a business that struggles.
As a threshold issue, if you don’t know exactly what your current entity structure is, then that’s ok (it’s not easy, and it’s not necessarily a ‘water cooler’ kind of topic), but this article is definitely for you and you should contact our expert Business Law Team so that we can help you identify it.
This three most common entity structures we encounter at EL are:
This is effectively the ‘starting point’ for many businesses. A sole trader is a single person who is carrying on a business under an ABN. An individual is of course capable of suing and being sued. In order to change the business structure, a sole trader must ‘transfer’ the business to another entity, which can be costly and will require payment of transfer duty based on the value of the transfer.
Income Distribution: all income of the business is distributed to the individual, which is to be declared in conjunction with any other income that individual earns. This is typically not an issue in the initial phase of a business while profit is building, but can be problematic if the individual is already paying a high rate of tax, as all profit earned by the business is also taxed at that rate.
Risk Profile: all assets owned by the individual can be at risk in any claim against the business. For example, if a customer/client or employee of the business sues the business and is successful, the individual may be required to sell other personal assets in order to pay out the claim, or risk declaring bankruptcy if the value of those assets are not enough to pay the claim.
A company is a separate legal entity to the people/persons that control it. The company is capable of suing and being sued. The controlling persons can be easily changed from time to time, which allows flexibility for business owners wanting to sell or bring other business partners on board.
Income Distribution: companies have additional flexibility when it comes to distribution of income, as it is ultimately distributed to the ‘shareholders’, which could be the individuals who control the company, another entity controlled by those individuals (for example another company or trust), or another entity controlled by a third party (for example an investor who has contributed funds to the business but does not assist in the day-to-day running of it). However this flexibility is somewhat limited, as the income must be distributed in accordance with the percentage of shares held by the shareholders.
Risk Profile: the company can be sued, and all assets held by the company are at risk in any claim against the business. If the company does not hold enough assets to pay the claim, the company may be required to wind up. Except in limited circumstances, typically the assets of the individuals who control the company are safe from any claim, so at worst the business will fold, but the individuals will maintain any other personally-held assets.
A trust is again a separate legal entity to those persons/entities who control it. The trust is capable of suing and being sued, and the controlling persons can also be easily changed from time to time by amending the trustee.
Income Distribution: trusts also have greater flexibility to distribute income, as it is distributed to the ‘beneficiaries’ of the trust, which can be individuals, companies, other trusts etc. A trust can be set up as a ‘discretionary’ trust, which allows the trustee flexibility to distribute income to the beneficiaries in any proportion that they determine.
Risk Profile: the risk profile of trusts is similar to that of companies, in that a trust can sue and be sued, and all assets held by the trust are at risk in any claim against the business. If the trust does not hold enough assets to pay the claim, the trust may be required to wind up, but similar to companies the assets of the trustees and beneficiaries are safe from any claim. In this situation, the business would fold but the individuals will maintain any personally-held assets.
There are of course other entities that you might encounter (such as partnership, unit trusts, etc), but they are largely either ‘outdated’ or only used in very specific circumstances. That does change from time to time based on things such as legislation and market preferences, but for now the three structures we have mentioned above are the most common.
In any decision around appropriate entity structures, often the accounting and legal advice are the same, which makes a decision easy. However, sometimes that advice can be conflicting, and you might find that trading in a certain entity will give you the greatest tax and accounting advantages, but will expose you to greater legal risk.
The classic example of this is a start-up business – in that example, while income is on the lower end because the business is starting out and growing, you’re often better starting off as a sole trader and minimising your accounting and set-up costs. The trade-off here is that you carry additional risk because your personal assets are exposed in the event of any claim. Depending on the type of business you operate and the personal assets you hold, you might be happy to accept that risk in favour of gaining some tax and accounting advantages.
At Enterprise Legal, we understand the competing accounting and legal benefits and risks, and we like to work with your accountant to discuss the best structure for you, both now and in the future. This way, you are armed with the knowledge from both sides and can make an informed decision.
At Enterprise Legal, we offer a free Business Health Check, in which we arrange a time to meet with you in-person or by phone/Zoom to assess your business needs. In addition to assessing other legal needs, this includes an in-depth analysis of your existing entity structure, and a discussion with you around other options, and the steps involved to change your structure.
We work with your accountant and other financial advisors to give you all the information, and discuss the best way to move forward. We can even create your new entity, amend your existing structure, or draft supporting entity documents to support your entity structure (such as company constitutions, association rules, shareholder’s agreements etc).
If you have any concerns or questions about your existing entity structure for your business, contact our expert Business Law team today:
☎️ | (07) 4646 2672✉️ | Submit an Online Request
Disclaimer: because we are #lawyers, we have to say that the advice in this article is generic in nature and not intended to apply to everyone’s personal circumstances. Please contact our EL Business Team, as well as your accountant, for customised advice regarding your business structuring.
In early June the Federal Government announced a $680 million HomeBuilder scheme to stimulate the construction sector as Australia begins the economic recovery following COVID-19. This scheme will allow eligible owner-occupiers to access a tax-free grant of $25,000 to build a new home, or substantially renovate their existing home from now until 31 December 2020.
To check whether you are eligible, click here to view the HomeBuilder Frequently Asked Questions PDF.
If you are interested in taking advantage of the HomeBuilder grant, there are a few things you should consider before you jump in.
One of the requirements of the grant is that construction begins within three months of signing the contract. Due to this tight time frame, it is important that you are organised and prepared, so you should consider whether you will have the sufficient time to have plans drawn up, obtain council approval and commence building within three months when signing the contract. From our experience, three months is a ‘tight timeframe’ to achieve the latter, so preparation is key!
In addition to the HomeBuilder grant, you should consider whether you may be eligible for other grants, which may include the first home owner grant and the regional home building boost grant. You won’t be able to use the grant in your initial deposit as it is expected that it will take some time for it to be awarded. As such, you will need to ensure you have sufficient financing for any initial costs that you may have.
It is very important that your builder is registered or licensed, otherwise you will not be eligible for the grant. You also cannot do the building work yourself as an owner-builder, or engage family or close friends. When selecting a builder, you should also review their proposed prices to ensure they’re reasonable and that you aren’t being ‘ripped off’ by builders capitalising on the HomeBuilder grant. Be on the lookout for builders who only commenced operating following the HomeBuilder announcement, as they are more likely to be taking advantage of the scheme than longstanding builders. Lastly, always make sure that you perform a QBCC license search on your builder, as this search will show you:
It is very important that you do not simply ‘sign up’ to the contract your builder presents. The financial commitment you are making is likely one of the biggest in your life, and it should be treated with the same caution and respect as any other financial arrangement of that size. There are a number of key clauses that you need to pay very careful attention to, and a number of standard amendments you ought to request.
Make sure you check out our knowledge page in the coming weeks for our ‘Top 10 Domestic Construction Contract Clauses to Consider’ article.
In the meantime, if you would like to take advantage of the HomeBuilder grant and it feels like there is too much to consider, the team at Enterprise Legal can help.
Since March 2018, Project Trust Accounts have been a requirement in certain building, construction and services projects involving government departments and hospital and health services in Queensland. From 1 January 2022, the Project Trust Accounts regime is being rolled out to the private sector and a broader range of government entities.
The Project Trust Accounts regime requires a head contractor to establish one Project Trust Account (PTA) for each ‘eligible contract’ for ‘project trust work’, along with a Trust Account for any retention monies held across all of the head contractor’s eligible contracts.
From 1 January 2022, Project Trust Accounts are applicable to:
The regime applies to contracts where over 50% of the contract price is for 'project trust work'. This includes the erection or construction, renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of 'buildings', and related site work. Buildings are defined broadly to include any fixed structure that is wholly or partly enclosed by walls or a roof. There are a range of exclusions for particular sectors and types of work or contract, such as pure maintenance contracts.
These trust accounts will need to be opened with an approved financial institution, and there are extensive requirements for head contractors who have to act as trustees and establish and manage these trust accounts. They also have to hold any retention monies in a retention trust account.
Principals who are awarding contracts over $10 million also have obligations under the Act, including to ensure that a trust account is established if they know that one ought to be, and to make payments only into that account.
Contract terms will generally require some updating to deal with the regime, particularly given the hefty penalties for non-compliance, some examples of penalties include:
If you need assistance with preparing or implementing systems for this new phase of the rollout, or if you need assistance with whether or not it applies to your business or project, contact the Enterprise Legal team today:
In response to the current Coronavirus pandemic and the impact that it has had on businesses, the Federal Government recently introduced temporary measures that will assist in relieving companies and their Directors in these times of financial difficulty. It is no secret that impending insolvency and/or bankruptcy is currently a very real risk for many Australian businesses and as any Director will know (or should know!) the implications of trading insolvent can be significant.
The intention of the relief being provided by the Government at this time is consistent with the overall theme of the relief being provided to all businesses and that is, to keep them trading while we all navigate these rapidly changing and challenging times by:
The relief measures that were passed by Parliament in late March will be in place for the next six months and include:
Both the threshold amounts for statutory demands and bankruptcy notices have been increased significantly, to $20,000, and the time to respond has been increased to six months. What this means is that the Government has recognized that companies and individuals alike may very well incur more debt while their businesses are affected during this time and will likely require more time to ‘get back on track’ and be in a position to pay their creditors. It seeks to ensure that companies and individuals are able to ‘stay afloat’ for as long as possible, rather than having to enter voluntary liquidation or declare bankruptcy.
These measures will no doubt provide some comfort for businesses who are concerned about outstanding debts owed to their creditors.
In the event that a company does find that the impacts of the pandemic have effected their business to a point where they are still struggling to pay their debts, the Directors of that company can rest assured that they may be relieved of any personal liability associated with insolvent trading that occurs over the next six months. It is extremely important for Directors to understand that this relief only applies to insolvent trading that has occurred during the ordinary course of the company’s business, it does not apply to cases of dishonesty or fraud (which will still be subject to criminal penalties). Directors must continue to ensure that they are still taking active steps to deal with financial stress and consider options for ‘staying afloat’, but are simply being given some breathing room to do so.
Regardless of the relief being provided by the Government, it remains as important as ever for business owners to consider how they might diversify their businesses to keep income coming in and keep the debts owed to creditors down. For that reason, we encourage businesses to seek professional advice wherever they can these matters and how they might take advantage of the other forms of relief being provided by the Government. Every business’ situation will be different, especially given the current climate, and seeking assistance earlier rather than later could make all the difference to how a business comes out of this on the other side.
As a small business our self, Enterprise Legal is extremely passionate about assisting businesses wherever we can in these difficult times and have already identified ways in which we can do so. To that end, we have prepared a number of free ‘Coronavirus Resources’ for businesses which are available via our website.
Please do not hesitate to get in touch with us to chat about how your business has been effected by the pandemic and how we might be able to assist you to survive and thrive!
Minor debts can be the cause of many sleepless nights for small to medium business owners. The problem is that while an amount owed to you might cause inconvenience to you should you not recover it, it might not be so large a sum that you want to incur further costs engaging a lawyer or a debt recovery agency to collect your money, especially when that might cost more than the actual debt!
In some aspects, it is simply easier to write the debt off. However, those minor debts can add up and if you are consistently writing off $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 every other month, this will cause significant detriment to the viability of your cash flow and business.
Having a formal Letter of Demand issued by a law firm sends a clear message that you are serious about recovering the debt and will not be so easily dismissed. The purpose of the Letter of Demand is also two-fold - first, it puts the debtor on notice of your intention to commence legal proceedings unless payment is made within a stipulated time frame. Secondly, the Letter can be used as evidence in subsequent court proceedings as written proof of your attempt to settle the matter early.
The Letter will also clearly set out the parameters of the dispute and may even account for any offset due. The Letter should attach a copy of any agreement, invoices or relevant text messages to assist any reader to identify the transaction and the liability to pay. This often assists in reducing the scale of the dispute to something more easily managed and addressed.
It is also our experience that you as a client feel emotionally better about the situation, after having decided to send a Letter of Demand. Having a trusted and knowledgeable advisor to discuss the problem with puts the problem into perspective. Often just having a plan and set steps to follow removes the stressful burden of figuring out what to do next by yourself.
The best result is receiving prompt payment from the debtor, with a side benefit of tightening up your trading terms and conditions to reduce the risk of debts arising again.
Another outcome is the creation of ‘industry reputation’. It may be to your benefit for your general customers to know that you are serious about being paid for your services and that you are willing to engage legal assistance when required. This perception is worth every metaphorical penny, as it can weed out the time wasters and non-payers from the very beginning.
Frequently though, no response nor payment is received. This at least crystallises your available options and we can let you know the costs associated with each subsequent step. The true power of a demand letter is being prepared to act on the foreshadowed step of commencing proceedings, otherwise the debtor may simply be calling your bluff.
Our highly experienced Disputes team at Enterprise Legal provides a full debt recovery service and can assist you from reviewing your contracts and debts, to sending Letters of Demand (at fixed fee rates) all the way through to commencing proceedings and obtaining Judgments, a winding-up Order or sequestration (bankruptcy) orders against a Debtor.
If you need assistance, Enterprise Legal will work collaboratively with you and financial advisors to assist to limit the damage whilst also ensuring your legal rights and interests are protected.
Contact EL’s Principal Legal Advisor – Disputes, Kirsten Woolston to discuss your options today:
With businesses starting to receive JobKeeper payments, the economy is in the midst of transitioning to the ‘new normal’ and business owners are finally starting to feel like they can, at least somewhat, breathe again. Consequently, now is the time to ‘take stock’, conduct an audit and ensure that the measures that your business implemented (most likely in haste), over the past few months are not now leaving your business exposed to potential claims and other legal risks.
Notably, a new section was introduced into the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), which allows the Commission to deal with disputes specifically regarding employer ‘JobKeeper directions’. This dispute mechanism allows for employees to lodge an application (at no cost) detailing their dispute, to which an employer must then respond to the application in the relevant time frame. Once the application and response has been submitted, the Fair Work Commission will deal with the dispute via arbitration, mediation, conciliation or alike, and it has broad powers to make orders “to give effect to a direction, set aside the direction, substitute the direction for a different direction or any other direction it considers appropriate”. There are also civil penalties that can be imposed on the employer, in certain circumstances.
New figures revealed by the Fair Work Commission show that its overall workload is already up by 40% compared to April 2019, with the increase apparently due to more cases about unfair dismissal, JobKeeper directions and JobKeeper payment disputes.
As at 7 May 2020, the Fair Work Commission had already received 212 disputes pertaining to the JobKeeper scheme, with the leading dispute topic being JobKeeper directions pertaining to changes to employee working hours.
Most businesses had to respond quickly to be able to adapt to the COVID-19 impacts and this saw a number of businesses taking drastic measures both in the restructuring of their businesses (such as new service offerings and operating hours), but also in the restructuring of their employees and the basis on which they are employed (such as reduced hours, different hours, change of duties and roles, change of location of work and so on). Most of these changes to employees’ employment can be made legally in certain circumstances, provided they strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. The problem is, most of these changes were made in a ‘reactive’ manner by businesses and when businesses ‘react’ they can often fail to comply with the myriad of applicable legal requirements.
The above examples are a mere snapshot of certain key considerations that employers ought to turn their mind to, so as to avoid unnecessarily exposing their businesses to legal claims and potential civil penalties.
It is now critically important that businesses audit the decisions they made over the past few months, to ensure those decisions strictly complied with the relevant laws, regulations and rules. Where it is found that decisions didn’t comply, a number of corrective measures are available to businesses to correct or mitigate any potential impacts.
If your business needs assistance, our team of employment law experts are standing by ready to guide you through this audit process.
EL has further put together an exclusive JobKeeper Audit Package, available to the first five businesses (with under fifteen employees) who contact us, under which we will audit your business and provide you with a compliance report and summary of required corrective measures (if necessary) for a fixed fee of $2,200.00 (incl. GST).
Call our team today to take advantage of this exclusive offer:
The need for companies to be able to sign documents electronically has become more apparent than ever during the COVID-19 pandemic. With that, the Federal Treasurer has implemented some temporary, progressive changes to the signing provisions contained in the Corporations Act 2001 (the Corps Act).
Enter the Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No.1) 2020 (the Determination), which now allows for company officers (i.e. Directors) to sign agreements and deeds in electronic format.
Previously, the Corps Act required company officers to physically sign a document in order for it to be valid and legally binding. Now, the Determination makes it possible for company officers to:
The usual requirement remains that if there is more than one director of a company then two directors are required to sign, but the Determination makes it possible for this to occur from a (safe) distance.
Further, if electronic signatures are being used (i.e. copied and pasted signatures, signing using a stylus or finger on a tablet or laptop or DocuSign) the relevant thresholds will also apply. This includes:
Do not get too used to this process, however, as the changes are only temporary and intended to assist businesses in the wake of COVID-19.
The changes implemented by the Determination are only in effect for a six (6) month period commencing from 6 May 2020.
These changes will no doubt assist in the efficiency and practicality of company execution of documents, so here’s hoping the changes are here to stay but you will need to stay tuned to find out! We will be following the developments in this regard closely and as always will ensure that we keep our clients up to date on any permanent developments.
If your business needs any assistance navigating the changing landscape brought upon by COVID-19, contact the EL team today:
Employees covered by the Nurses Award 2010, Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020 and Aged Care Award 2010 who are employed by residential aged care providers or are required to work in residential aged care facilities are now entitled to two weeks’ paid pandemic leave following a recent announcement from the Fair Work Commission.
Permanent and casual employees engaged on a regular and systematic basis under the aforementioned modern awards are now entitled to take up to two weeks’ paid pandemic leave on each occasion they are prevented from working when:
Yes, employees will not be entitled to access paid pandemic leave if:
Employees requesting pandemic leave are also required to: · provide their employer with notice and the reason why they are taking the leave, as soon as practicable; and if required · provide evidence that would satisfy ‘a reasonable person’ that the leave is being taken for one of the specified reasons; and produce a medical certificate.
Employees are still entitled to workers’ compensation if they test positive for COVID-19 and their paid pandemic leave ceases, provided COVID-19 was contracted during their employment.
At this point in time it is uncertain whether or not this entitlement will be broadened to other modern awards and employers in other industries are understandably curious and nervous. The Fair Work Commission, in their statement, confirmed that the paid pandemic leave is in response to “The seriousness of the position in the aged care sector”, however time will tell if this will broaden further in the rapid changing times.
If you have any questions or need any support with your workplace during these times, do not hesitate to contact EL's Principal Legal Advisor – Workplace Relations, Amie Mish-Wills:
☎️ (07) 4646 2425
The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) has stepped in to provide support for the real estate industry and commission-only real estate agents who are covered by the Real Estate Industry Award 2020 (the Award), by removing the months of May, June, July, August, September and October 2020 from the calculation of Minimum Income Threshold Amount (MITA) for the preceding 12-month period.
The MITA will be subsequently adjusted in proportion to the number of months disregarded, provided that, where the commission-only employee’s review date falls partway through any COVID-19 month, that month may only be disregarded where the review is due after the 14th of the month.
The Commission has also amended the Award to suspend the eligibility for the engagement of further commission-only agents for the period 6 August 2020 to 1 November 2020. Specifically, the Award has been amended to state:
“An employee who is not employed as a commission-only salesperson as at 6 August 2020, shall not be eligible to be employed on a commission-only basis prior to 1 November 2020.”
The aforementioned changes are in operation from the 6th of August 2020, however, for those recently employed, they do not take effect until the start of the employee’s first full pay period that starts on or after 6 August 2020.
You can read the Commission's decision on The Treasury's website.
The recent changes to JobKeeper announced on the 7th of August 2020 will also provide an element of reprieve for some, with businesses now only needing to demonstrate that their GST turnover has fallen in one quarter, instead of two, in order to qualify for the recently extended scheme.
Instead of the requirement to demonstrate a decline in turnover for both the June and September quarters, the 7th of August 2020 announcement confirms businesses will now only need to show that GST turnover has fallen in the September quarter, compared to the corresponding period in 2019.
Employee eligibility and payments have also changed, to the extent that the scheme has been amended to cover those who have been working since at least 1 July 2020, instead of the original deadline of 1 March 2020. The payment rate will also drop from October to $1,500 to $1,200 for full-time workers, and to $750 for part-time workers, before dropping again in January to $1,000 per fortnight for full-time workers and $650 for part-time workers.
Employers will need to use the two fortnightly pay periods to either 1 March 2020, or 1 July 2020 to calculate JobKeeper payment tiers and if an employee has been eligible for JobKeeper since March 1, the fortnightly period with the highest number of hours worked should be used.
Click here to read the 7 August 2020 announcement from The Treasury detailing the changes to JobKeeper.
The recent decision in Broadlex Services Pty Ltd v United Workers’ Union  FCA 867 highlights the risks employers will face if they reduce the hours of their employees without consent.
Broadlex, a cleaning company, experienced a downturn in business which triggered it to advise full-time employee, Ms Vrtovski, that her employment status would be reduced from full-time to part-time, reducing her hours from 38 hours per week to 20 hours per week (with a proportionate reduction in salary).
Ms Vrtovski declined to sign a form consenting to the change but nevertheless worked the reduced hours as she felt she had no choice. She later filed a dispute and upon examination, Justice Katzmann of the Federal Court of Australia held that Ms Vrtovski was entitled to redundancy pay on the grounds that:
1. Section 119 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) confirms that a redundancy requires:
2. by reducing Ms Vrtovski’s hours without consent, Broadlex had repudiated her contract of employment, which was accepted by her when she refused to sign the consent form. This, in turn, had the effect of terminating Ms Vrtovski’s full-time employment and when she commenced working on a part-time basis, she did so under a new contract of employment;
3. as the termination of Ms Vrtovski’s employment was initiated by Broadlex (when they changed her employment to part-time), who did not require her full-time role to be done by anyone, Ms Vrtovski’s circumstances met the requirements of section 119 and she was therefore entitled to redundancy pay.
The decision in Broadlex serves as an important reminder that employers need to be very careful when making changes to an employee’s employment.
If you find yourself in a situation where you are considering making similar changes within your business, we encourage you to contact EL's Principal Legal Advisor – Workplace Relations, Amie Mish-Wills for advice & support:
Provisions of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2020(Qld) (the Act) will take effect on 1 October 2020, introducing significant payment security reforms.
In particular, the Act introduces a new remedy for head contractors that have not been paid an adjudication debt by a principal/client following the filing of an adjudication certificate. This remedy allows a head contractor to request a charge over the property on which construction work was carried out where:
Importantly, this charge is lodged with the registrar of titles and is to exist for 24 months after registration unless discharged, set aside, or the adjudicated amount is paid.
Additionally, a head contractor is able to enforce the charge by application to the Court for orders that the property is sold, which will authorise the sale of the property free of all encumbrances and will have effect regardless of any encumbrances. The Act defines ‘encumbrance’ to mean:
This mechanism means that a head contractor is able to apply to have the property sold, even if there are prior encumbrances.
On settlement of sale of property ordered by the Court, sale proceeds would be applied in the following order:
This is a very powerful tool available to head contractors because it provides them with practical, relatively straightforward and economical leverage to force compliance by principals/clients or risk serious ramifications that typically otherwise only eventuates in very limited circumstances.
To avoid any charges being registered and enforced, principals/clients should ensure that any adjudication amounts are paid as a matter of priority. Under the Act, payment must be made 5 business days after the adjudicator’s decision, or a later date if decided by the adjudicator, so it is important that principals act quickly to prevent the registration and enforcement of potential charges.
Need further clarification? Enterprise Legal are Toowoomba's construction law experts - make a time to see us today:
An employer has been ordered to pay full redundancy entitlements to employees despite offering them other employment arrangements.
The recent decision of Lee Crane Hire Pty Ltd v Sneek and Ors  FWC serves as an important example of when an employer will be required to pay redundancy entitlements to employees, despite offering them alternative means of employment.
Section 120 of the Fair Work Act provides a mechanism for employers to apply to vary the amount redundancy pay owing to an employee (which may be reduced to nil) in circumstances where the employer obtains other acceptable employment for the employee (and they reject it) or the employer simply cannot pay the amounts owing.
If an employer is able to prove that it offered an employee other acceptable employment and the employee rejected such employment and sought payment of their redundancy entitlements instead, an employer could request the Fair Work Commission reduce the redundancy pay potentially to nil.
The onus of proving that the alternative employment is acceptable rests with the employer. There is a body of case law which has set the bar particularly high and involves consideration of a range of non-exhaustive factors including, pay levels, hours of work, seniority, fringe benefits, workload, job security, work location, continuity of service, accrual of benefits, probationary periods, as well as the employee’s skills, experience and physical capacity. The location of the other employment must also not be unreasonably distant from the employee’s original place of work.
Lee Crane v Sneek is a prime example of how the Fair Work Commission assesses ‘other acceptable employment’ and is a cautionary tale for employers, particularly those who may wish to offer casual or far away employment to soon-to-be redundant employees. Here’s what happened:
What’s the lesson?
Employers need to tread very carefully when navigating redundancies and further, they need to ensure that any offers for other employment are indeed ‘acceptable’ based on the Fair Work Commission’s assessment criteria.
It goes without saying that if you are wondering if your redundancy process is correct or you are wishing you had some expert assistance to ensure your redundancy alternatives are not labelled “the devil’s alternative”, do not hesitate to contact Enterprise Legal’s Principal Workplace Relations Advisor, Amie Mish-Wills:
Page 1 of 3