Sladen Snippet - Jamsek – truck driver partnerships not eligible for super guarantee
The Full Federal Court has confirmed in Jamsek v ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCAFC 48 that a truck driver partnership was not eligible for super guarantee contributions. The decision is an important decision in relation the application to super guarantee in relation to contractors and, in particular, partnerships and other entities.
Challenge to routine requirements for shiftworkers to work on public holidays upheld
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v OS MCAP Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 51
Background facts
The Respondent (OS)[1] — BHP’s in–house labour hire provider — operates the Daunia Mine near Moranbah in central Queensland. OS employs shiftworkers on a 24/7 basis to work in the Daunia Mine.
OS rostered shiftworkers on Christmas and Boxing Day 2019 as part of standard operations at the Daunia Mine
An application was brought by the CFMMEU contending that a routine requirement for employees to work during public holidays (as rostered) contravened ss 44 and 114 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The CFMMEU argued that a requirement for workers to perform work during public holidays by way of routine rostering enlivened section 114 of the FW Act such that employers would need to first reasonably request employees to work on public holidays. At first instance the Federal Court held that a routine requirement to work on public holidays was not in contravention of section 114 of the FW Act. The CFMMEU subsequently appealed to the Full Court.
OS’s standard form contracts said that the expectation to work on public holidays was incorporated into existing remuneration. Relevant contractual provisions stipulated that employees “may be required to work on public holidays”.
Key Issues to be decided
The Full Court considered whether OS’s engagement of shiftworkers on 24/7, 365-day rosters enlivened section 114 of the FW Act in circumstances where employees were routinely required to work on public holidays (and specifically on Christmas Day and Boxing Day in 2019).
The CFMMEU argued that a contravention of s 114(2) would occur where an employer imposes a requirement for employees to work on public holidays without making any request at all. OS argued that its requirement for shiftworkers to work on Christmas and Boxing day 2019 was a reasonable request within the meaning of section 114(2) of the FW Act.
Determination
The Full Court held that OS had contravened section 114(2) because it required the employees to work on Christmas Day and Boxing Day in 2019 without affording an opportunity to reasonably challenge or refuse the requirement. The evidence showed that OS required (and did not request) shiftworkers to work on the relevant public holidays. There was an assumption that employees rostered to work on public holidays would work unless they applied for leave and it was granted. OS did not communicate to employees that they had any right under s 114 or otherwise to refuse to work on public holidays.
The Full Court cited the previous decision of Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees Association v Woolworths Ltd [2012] FCA 540 in which Barker J suggested that a request in the context of section 114(1) included “leaving room for negotiation and discussion.” The Full Court further considered that section 114(2) required employers to provide employees with an opportunity to refuse the request on reasonable grounds.
The Full Court said:
[38] The intended mischief the provision confronts is the inherent power imbalance that exists between employers and employees. By virtue of this imbalance, employees will often feel compelled, and not understand, that they have the capacity to refuse a request that is unreasonable or where their own refusal is reasonable. The requirement that there be a “request” rather than a unilateral command, prompts the capacity for discussion, negotiation and a refusal.
The Full Court has clarified that s 114(2) will be contravened if there is no opportunity afforded to refuse an unreasonable request
Implications for Employers
Ask employees: Employees cannot unreasonably refuse a request to work on a public holiday. Employers can robustly respond to refusal communications in accordance with business / operational requirements. However, it is important to set expectations upfront.
Provide an opportunity to challenge: Employers must at least provide employees who are rostered to work on a public holiday with an opportunity to challenge the applicable roster if it would be unreasonable to work on a particular public holiday. This requires making employees aware that they can reasonably refuse a request to work on a public holiday.
Take action: Employers who employ shiftworkers on 24/7 rostering arrangements should take action as follows:
implement policies, procedures and processes to assess and respond to employee refusals to work on public holidays; and
ensure that employees who are rostered to work on public holidays confirm that they have agreed to work (ideally in writing) on the relevant public holiday.
Click on the link below to download our full summary.
Thomas & Naaz – Payments To Doctors Subject To Payroll Tax
The New South Wales Court of Appeal (NSWCA) in Thomas and Naaz Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] NSWCA 40 has dismissed a medical practice’s appeal and upheld the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Panel’s (Appeal Panel) decision that payments from a medical practice to doctors, who worked at the practice, are subject to payroll tax.
Sladen Legal Lawyers Recognised as Best Lawyers® Award Recipients
This year seven of Sladen Legal’s lawyers have been recognised in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers® in Australia. Daniel Smedley, Bernie O’Sullivan, Phil Broderick, Rob Jeremiah, Neil Brydges, Victor Di Felice, and Edward Skilton. The list of exceptional legal professionals was announced on 20 April 2023.
The Deceased Estate: Who Pays The Tax
Bosanac: presumption of advancement
Sick Pay Guarantee scheme: where to next?
Death And Incapacity And The SMSF: Who Steps In To Call The Shots?
The general requirement of an self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) is that all members must be trustees of the SMSF or directors of the SMSF corporate trustee. As such, putting aside disputes between trustees/directors, generally members are making the decisions about their benefits and the assets of the SMSF.
Division 7A: Managing Unpaid Present Entitlements
Treasury releases information sheet on “30% tax” on $3m+ super balances
Treasury has released an information sheet on how the new “30% tax rate” for super balances over $3 million will work.
Digital Assets And SMSFs – BEE Alert Or BEE Alarmed?
According to the ATO’s March 2022 statistical data (see here), the total value of crypto assets held by SMSFs was $220 million. That is less than 0.03% of all SMSF investments. The number of SMSFs that held crypto assets was 3,345 SMSFs being 0.6% of SMSFs.
NSW Government determines that surcharge purchaser duty and surcharge land tax is inconsistent with international tax treaties
On 21 February 2023 Revenue NSW announced that it has been determined that NSW surcharge purchaser duty and surcharge land tax (Surcharge Provisions) are inconsistent with international tax treaties entered into by the Australian Federal Government with New Zealand, Finland, Germany, and South Africa (Treaty Countries).
Windfall Gains Tax Deductions Shelved
The introduction of windfall gains tax under the Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Act 2021 (Vic) (Act) has been highly controversial from the outset due to real concerns as to whether the tax truly captures a purported “windfall” by landowners who rezone land in Victoria and its punitive tax rate of 50% of such gains.
Back To Basics: With Flexibility Can Come Complications: The Use Of Trusts
Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave Entitlement Comes into Force
Recently, the paid family and domestic violence leave entitlement provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 came into force. This new entitlement is available to nearly all employees in Australia and imposes new obligations on employers. So, what is the new entitlement and what do employers need to do when they are faced with a request to take the leave? We provide the answers in our Employment Law team’s most recent article.
Guardian AIT: 100A or ATO’s Part IVA angel in disguise?
This time last year, we published an article querying whether the Federal Court decision in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 (First Instance Decision) would ignite an administrative and judicial quest for clarity on the interpretation of section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936).
Treasury proposes NALI tax rate of 225%
After industry pushback against the disproportionate application of the non-arm’s length income (NALI) and non-arm’s length expenses (NALE) rules, Treasury has a released a discussion paper to modify the application of the NALI/NALE rules.
Vicinity Funds – Choice of forum for state taxes matters - Supreme Court vs VCAT
The High Court of Australia has dismissed the special leave application by the taxpayer, Vicinity Funds Re Ltd (Taxpayer) to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal).
Sladen Snippet – ATO warns on SMSF gift and loan back (asset protection) arrangements
In an interesting development, the ATO has released a warning in relation to SMSFs entering into gift and loan back arrangements.