1 / 12

The Future of the Employment Contract

The Future of the Employment Contract. Dr Joellen Riley Law Faculty University of New South Wales. Rising individualism . . . … declining collectivism. Must we blame global capital? Or the emergence of HRM theory? Or “Gen Y” preferences?. Proof?.

amadis
Download Presentation

The Future of the Employment Contract

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Future of the Employment Contract Dr Joellen Riley Law Faculty University of New South Wales

  2. Rising individualism . . .… declining collectivism Must we blame global capital? Or the emergence of HRM theory? Or “Gen Y” preferences?

  3. Proof? • Even ALP policy acknowledges a role for the individual agreement: • Forward with Fairness anticipates the use of “common law arrangements which will allow employers and employees to create flexible and fair workplace arrangements which best suit their needs” (page 7).

  4. The challenges of regulation based on individual contracts . . . Construction and interpretation Remedies Dispute resolution

  5. Construction and interpretation: What is the “contract”? Is this sheaf of papers the contract? What does it really mean?

  6. “What is the contract” problems • The “entire contract” problem: • e.g. Network Ten v Rowe. • Inconsistent communications • e.g.: Walker v Citigroup • Other communications: HR policies. • E.g. Nikolich

  7. “What does it mean” problems • An implied obligation “not to destroy mutual trust and confidence”. • Is this a “good faith” obligation? • And what is its practical effect? • Observations from some cases: • Walker v Citigroup • Taske

  8. Russell [2007] NSWSC 104 • “In the context of an employment relationship, if there exists a duty to act in good faith it ‘imports a requirement that the person doing the act exercise prudence, caution and diligence’, which would mean due care to avoid or minimise adverse consequences to the other party.” [117]

  9. No effect on decisions to terminate? • At [138]: “There is no authority in Australia or England for the proposition that the implied term . . . applies to affect the right to terminate.” • Kerry Foods [2005] IRLR 680: “The giving of lawful notice cannot of itself constitute a breach of the implied term.”

  10. 2. Remedies • How are damages assessed (Taske)? • Is there room for ‘loss of chance’ (Walker)? • Is there room for general damages for mental anguish (Nikolich, Walker)? • Is there room for reinstatement/ specific performance (Mezey [2007] IRLR 237)?

  11. Dispute resolution • Needs to • Be accessible and affordable • Generate acceptable and reasonable standards • Communicate those standards • Avoid the ‘dark side’ of informality This is the single greatest challenge for a system based on individual agreements

  12. Solutions?

More Related