February 4, 2025 • 19 mins
From stacking shelves to tapping away at the till, shops in Australia are run by workers whose future pay and conditions hang in the balance. Australia’s workplace tribunal, the Fair Work Commission, is hearing a case that could see the minimum gap between shifts cut from 12 to 10 hours. The proposal would also scrap rest breaks for higher-paid retail managers, a measure supported by some of Australia’s biggest companies – including Woolworths, Coles, Kmart, and MECCA.
It comes as more than 300 ex-Lovisa staff launch a class action against the jewellery company over allegations they were underpaid, and regularly and illegally deprived of rest breaks. TDA’s deep dive will dig into some of the big legal battles set to redefine Australia’s retail scene.
Hosts: Harry Sekulich and Emma Gillespie
Producer: Orla Maher
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already and this is this is the daily This is
the daily os oh Now it makes sense. Good morning
and welcome to the Daily Ohs. It's Wednesday, the fifth
of February.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
I'm Harry, I'm Emma.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
From stacking shelves to tapping away at the till. Shops
in Australia are run by workers whose future pay and
conditions hang in the ballots. The National Workplace Tribunal is
hearing a case that could see the minimum gap between
ships cut from twelve to ten hours and scrap rest
breaks for higher paid retail managers. Some of Australia's biggest
(00:41):
companies are supporting the move, including Woolle's, Coals, Kmart and Mecha. Meanwhile,
ex Laviza staff assuing their old employer over allegations they
were underpaid and were regularly and illegally deprived of rest breaks.
Today we'll take a look at some of the big
legal battles set to redefine Australia's retail scene.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Harry, we're talking about some pretty big name brands, a
lot of movement in the space of workers rights and
retail today. I know you and I've spoken about working
in retail before, and what a formative experience it can
be for young Aussies, young people especially.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Let me guess you were at them all at one
point in your life.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
I actually went down the Hospow route. I consider myself
a retail a reformed retail girlie, because I worked in
like a juice bar in a Westfield. Okay, so I
was meeting people on their retail adventures.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
It's just that, Emma, you could sell me anything. I
think that you've just got the retail knack in you.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Thank you so much, Harry. If this goes belly up,
I might be dropping my resume into a few shops.
But in all seriousness, we are talking about some very
real cases and examples of change in the industry. I
want to get into this really interesting case that you
came across because I know that you have been buried
in the details. You are the expert now on this
(02:06):
fair work one. Can you explain what's going on with
this story?
Speaker 1 (02:10):
So this particular story actually stretches back to February last year,
although it has emerged in the headlines in more recent weeks,
and I'll get to why that is. But basically, the
Australian Retail Association made an application to the Fair Work
Commission to make some changes to retail awards. That was
a massive word salad. So I'm going to break that
(02:31):
down a little bit. Yeah, I can see is.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
The Australian Retail Association.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
First of all, very good questions. So the Retail Association
is a professional body representing some of the big companies
and retailers around the country. So it does range from
some of the big businesses that we know about to
smaller businesses, and the bosses of those businesses that might
employ just five or six people can join up to
(02:59):
this association. But it's not an association for retail workers.
I'll just sort of make that point as a point
of clarity. So when I talk about retail awards, which
is the next thing I mentioned in my word salad, there,
an award is the formal set of conditions and pay
arrangements for retail staff or staff in a particular industry.
(03:23):
So if you work in hospitality, as you did, Emma,
you would be very familiar you are covered under a
certain industry awards. So when I worked at Macis back
in the day is my very first job, I was
covered by the Fast Food Award and I remember on
my pay slip, I would have the very specific award
title and details, and I could go and check that
at any time to see what I was in title
(03:45):
to as an employee. So basically, what the Retail Association
has done is they've gone to the Fair Work Commission,
which the last piece of my salad is the Workplace Tribunal,
so it's sort of the one stop shop for a
lot of workplace disputes around the country. But they also
set the conditions of awards, so these specific industry awards,
(04:06):
and if you want to make changes to the award,
you have to go to the Fairwork Commission. And that's
what the Retail Association has done, and it's put forward
a number of proposals.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Okay, so the Retail Association is a group representing a
bunch of companies, brands, retailers. They've gone to the Fairwork Commission,
that's the employment and industrial regulator putting forward these changes.
So what is the Retail Association pushing to change?
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Yeah, so there were initially seventeen proposed changes that the
Retail Association was calling for. They range from some very
technical sort of wording in the retail awards. So as
it stands, you can agree to certain things with your
employer in writing. Now, there are notes in the Retail
award that says that in writing can also mean an
email or a text message. So what the Retail Association
(04:57):
wants to do is just sort of scrap those notes
and say that this could include digital records as well
as written records. Very technical thing.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Just modernizing, making it a bit clearer.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Absolutely, Okay, so they seem to be a little bit
less controversial, But then when we get into some of
the other award changes that it's looking into, it gets
a little bit more murky. So one of the changes
they want to make to the award is cutting the
minimum gap between shifts from twelve to ten hours. Anyone
who works in hospitality could tell you that that's the
(05:30):
rule in restaurants in bars around the country. For fast food,
there's actually no minimum set time between your shifts.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
So when you say like a minimum gap, you mean,
for example, your shift finishes at nine pm, that there
are awards to protect workers from being rostered on any
earlier than nine am the next day.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
That's right, and for all retail staff. If these award
changes go through, that means that they could be rusted
on for seven am next day instead. The association said
it would bring it in line with other industries, that
it's pretty standard this change. And it's also looking at
what's called salary absorption. You can forget that word for
now because that's the technical meaning, but I'll go into
(06:14):
what that actually looks like. So this is a situation
involving higher paid retail staff. So we think of like
managers or supervisors of a store or a two ic
at a fashion retailer, for instance. So for these workers,
they would lose their rights to overtime and penalty rates,
so think like weekends or public holidays, and they wouldn't
(06:37):
get allowances for things like their work clothes or a
meal break or something like that. And they also would
lose their entitlement to those short rest breaks that we
come to know as like a smoke oh back in
the day. So some workers might want to go out
and get a drink of water or have some tea.
Depends what you want to do in those little ten
(06:57):
minute timeframes.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
So under the retailer will there are different entitlements for
breaks depending on how long your shift is. You might
have a longer lunch break, but you might also have
a shorter ten or fifteen break to just go and
chill out.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Yeah, if you're well on your phone, that's right. So
if you're working between say three and five hours, you're
typically entitled to about a ten minute break. That's pretty standard.
What the Retail Association wants to do for the higher
level managers is sort of scrap that, right, But in exchange,
these workers would actually get paid more. So the increase
would be at least twenty five percent above the current
(07:32):
national minimum standard for this level of employee, and at
the moment that's about fifty four thousand dollars a year,
and that would go up to sixty seven thousand dollars
a year. Gay.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
So under these proposed changes, people that work in retail
management positions would forego some of those rights that you mentioned,
like certain breaks, penalty rates, over time, et cetera. But
in exchange, they would get a twenty five percent pay
increase that could see salary is go from about fifty
four thousand dollars a year to I think you mentioned
(08:04):
sixty seven thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
That's right, and it wouldn't be an enforced change e though.
It's just important to note that that there would actually
have to be agreement between the employee and the employee
if this was to take effect. Okay, So, as I mentioned,
it could be a written record, could be a digital
record of just signing away that waiver of entitlements to
extra pay.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Okay. So what strikes me about these reforms is it
does feel a little bit unusual to see a conversation
like this happen between like a body representing the businesses
looking to change the options available to retail workers, rather
than a blanket rule that sort of flips their circumstances
(08:46):
and either forces them in or out of something. So
why is this happening now? Has the Retail Association said
why they want to make these changes and why they've
gone to fair Work to sort of hammer that out?
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Yes, So, in its very rich application back in February,
the Retail Association said that as it stands, the award
is really complicated and anyone that's had a look at
the document might agree with them. So they wanted to
introduce some of these changes as a way of promoting
a bit more flexibility, making things a little bit simpler.
And they also wanted to make these changes to make
(09:21):
it easier to clarify some work conditions between employee and employer.
So that's kind of at the heart of why they
are pushing for these changes. And as I mentioned, it
has been dragging on for a little while now, but
the reason I came across it is because recently there
have been some of these really big employers in Australia
who have supported this move. So when you think about
(09:44):
retail workers instantly, you would probably think about a big
business like Coals or kmart or Barbecues Galore maybe, and
these are all companies that are now backing in this
move in the Fairwork Commission. They've joined the Australian Retailers
Associations bid to have these provisions put in place, and
(10:05):
that's all seventeen of the initial proposals put forward by
the Retails Association. So I mentioned very technical changes right
through to that higher end salary earner getting more pay
in exchange for changes to what they are entitled to.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Right. I'm really interested in hearing how workers are responding
to this because I guess hearing this idea of the
twenty five percent pay increase for more senior retail workers,
that does sound like a significant pay increase, especially, you
know when we talk about ongoing pay negotiations across more
public service work. There's been high profile conversations about that lately,
(10:42):
and often they're arguing over five to ten to fifteen percent,
So twenty five percent sounds significant. But on the other side,
when you think about penalty rates, often penalty rates can
be a twenty five to fifty percent loading, depending on
the circumstances. So how do workers feel about a shift
in their rights? What's the response been.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
I guess the argument has been framed in that way
that you do sort of give up certain rights in
order to get a pay increase. And yeah, I've been
really interested in this question as well because it is
a really interesting sort of dilemma that you could be
put into, because I'm sure everybody would agree that it
sounds nice to get a pay increase, but it comes
(11:24):
with conditions. So the unions which represent workers have come
out really stridently against these proposed changes. The peak union body,
the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said that the changes
would affect one million retail workers in varying capacities. So
that's from changing the minimum gap between the shifts to
(11:46):
the higher paid managers and supervisors. The ACTU have accused
some of these big companies that have announced their support
for the changes of trying to cut pay and conditions
in what they say is the guy of workplace flexibility.
That's in their words.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Okay, so they're suggesting that the Retail Association might be
trying to look like they're creating more options and evening
out the playing field for workers. But the union is
arguing that that's a bit of a disguise.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
This smoke screen is what they say. That's kind of
their wording. I think it's just important to note that
the Retailers Association has disputed a lot of the union's claims,
especially that this would lead to lower wages and poorer conditions.
They point to some other industry awards that have similar
arrangements in place and say that that has been broadly successful.
(12:36):
But whenever we talk about workplace relations or workplace disputes,
I feel like it gets political pretty quickly, and the
unions have already linked to this case to the upcoming
federal election, which needs to be held by the seventeenth
of May. For anyone that needs reminding, the ACTU assistant
Secretary Joseph Mitchell said Australians deserve to know which side
(12:58):
their politicians are on. Are they on the side of
big business profitiers seeking to cut people's wages or on
the side of cost of living relief measures that have
got wages moving again, that's in Joseph Mitchell's words. I've
tried to get this answer for him because I was
really curious what our politicians are thinking about this matter.
So the Employment Minister Murray Watt told TDA that he
(13:21):
does have some concerns about the case at the moment,
especially if it's going to mean some changes to worker entitlements.
He also said he had a question for the coalition
he pivoted to asking whether if they won the election,
would they protect big businesses cutting workers' wages during a
cost of living squeeze. So I heard back from Murray
Watt's counterpart, who is the Shadow Employment Minister, Michaylia Cash,
(13:45):
who dismissed his remarks, saying that it's just a baseless
scare campaign in her words, driven by the government and
the unions.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Okay, so some pretty strong words from both the government
and the opposition and the Business Association. The Retailers Association,
So when are we expecting an outcome? It doesn't sound
like there are many people on the same page in
this debate. It is ongoing in the Fair Work Commission.
(14:16):
Is there a resolve in sight?
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Well, there will be a case hearing over ten days
starting on the seventeenth of March, and I'll definitely be
keeping a close eye on it. But while I'm at it,
I just wanted to mention there's another case that's really
grabbed my attention in recent days, and that involves former
staff at the jewelry company Levisa.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
As a woman of a certain age who may or
may not have purchased a lot of jewelry from Levisa
after school, or may have been adorned in her year
ten formal jewelry by Levisa. I was very interested in
this story because along with this fair work story, that's
some pretty high profile businesses caught up in a kind
(14:58):
of retail conversation at the moment about worker entitlements.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Yeah. Absolutely, you go to many malls in or shopping
centers in Australia, you'll probably stumble across all a visa.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
So it's yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Something that I feel like affects a lot of people
in the country.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
So what's happening with these former staff.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Yeah, so these Lavisa workers or former employees have taken
the company to the Federal Court over allegations that they
were underpaid and exploited. So this is a class action
involving more than three hundred people who had worked at
Laviza places like Canberra and Melbourne. And these were employees
(15:33):
who had worked there between twenty eighteen and twenty twenty four.
So the court documents spell out some of the allegations
against Laviza. So these workers are accusing the company of
failing to pay them minimum wages, telling staff not to
take meal or toilet brakes, and not paying overtime. There
are also some really fascinating stories which I must add
(15:55):
up all allegations of this stage. But this involves a
manager going to another store to close up because the
staff that had been there at the time weren't fully
trained or experienced enough to close up a store, so
just knowing the end of day procedures and practices, and
this worker claims that they had to go back to
their original store after doing that and perform a similar task.
(16:19):
What is being alleged is that when traveling between these stores.
You're normally entitled to a travel allowance, so that's just
to pay for fuel that you've used to help out
the company. These personal alledg is that Levisa never paid
them for traveling between the stores.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
So the claim is that they were someone with enough
experience to close up the shop that understaffing issues meant
that there weren't those senior people in other stores, and
they've had to kind of go between different shops allegedly
to be that senior person, but haven't been adequately compensated
for their.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Travel time exactly right, And those kind of stories is
what's being heard at the moment in the federal court
and tested against evidence. Of course, one of these other
stories that really stood out to me was that as
a Lavisa employee, you have to wear sometimes up to
five pieces of jewelry. It's all part of the merchandising
and branding of the company. So what some of these
(17:12):
workers are alleging is that there was a common plastic
bag of jewelry for the staff to wear when they
were working, and when they would wear some of this jewelry,
it would turn their skin grain. So I'm sure anyone
who has had jewelry that has gotten a bit old
or something can probably relate to this experience. And so
(17:33):
what some of the stuff would do was then buy
their own Levisa jewelry and under the rules and under
the conditions of working there, they were expected to be
compensated for that jewelry. But they alleged that Levisa never
reimburse them for the cost of the jewelry, interesting, which
they under the rules as well, also had to wear
if they were going to be serving customers and helping
(17:55):
people out around the store, they needed to be wearing.
This story, so sort of stuck in a bind there.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
I'm always really interested in how different brands kind of
set the rules for things like uniform and presentation, because
when we're talking about retail, particularly fashion retail, you know,
it's almost like the employees are physical visual merchandising products themselves.
You know, you walk into a shop, you see someone
wearing something looks great, you want to know that you
(18:21):
can get it too. So it is fascinating to learn allegedly,
you know, the claims of how the machine kind of
works from the inside.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Absolutely, and it is important to note that Lavisa has
acknowledged the lawsuit and said, it'll defend itself against the claims.
So Emma, I'm going to be toggling between the Fair
Work Commission, the Federal Court and Federal Parliament over the
next few months, so you'll know where to find me
if you're looking for me.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Thank you so much, Harry. It sounds like you're going
to have a great time.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Ah, I sure will. All these things that keep the
country going, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Yeah, the important stories that Matta. Thank you so much
for breaking that down for us, Harry. Some real big
and complicated cases there, but all of you know, national
scale and ongoing, and we will keep you updated. As
Harry mentioned, thank you so much for listening to today's
episode of The Daily os. If you learn something, feel
(19:15):
free to share it with a friend. Don't forget to
subscribe or follow wherever you listen to the podcast or
if you're watching us over on YouTube. Hello. We will
be back later on today with the evening headlines, but
until then, have a fabulous day.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda
bunge lung Kalkotin woman from Gadigl Country. The Daily oz
acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands of
the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to
the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Already and this is this is the daily This is
the daily os oh Now it makes sense. Good morning
and welcome to the Daily Ohs. It's Wednesday, the fifth
of February.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
I'm Harry, I'm Emma.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
From stacking shelves to tapping away at the till. Shops
in Australia are run by workers whose future pay and
conditions hang in the ballots. The National Workplace Tribunal is
hearing a case that could see the minimum gap between
ships cut from twelve to ten hours and scrap rest
breaks for higher paid retail managers. Some of Australia's biggest
(00:41):
companies are supporting the move, including Woolle's, Coals, Kmart and Mecha. Meanwhile,
ex Laviza staff assuing their old employer over allegations they
were underpaid and were regularly and illegally deprived of rest breaks.
Today we'll take a look at some of the big
legal battles set to redefine Australia's retail scene.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Harry, we're talking about some pretty big name brands, a
lot of movement in the space of workers rights and
retail today. I know you and I've spoken about working
in retail before, and what a formative experience it can
be for young Aussies, young people especially.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Let me guess you were at them all at one
point in your life.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
I actually went down the Hospow route. I consider myself
a retail a reformed retail girlie, because I worked in
like a juice bar in a Westfield. Okay, so I
was meeting people on their retail adventures.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
It's just that, Emma, you could sell me anything. I
think that you've just got the retail knack in you.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Thank you so much, Harry. If this goes belly up,
I might be dropping my resume into a few shops.
But in all seriousness, we are talking about some very
real cases and examples of change in the industry. I
want to get into this really interesting case that you
came across because I know that you have been buried
in the details. You are the expert now on this
(02:06):
fair work one. Can you explain what's going on with
this story?
Speaker 1 (02:10):
So this particular story actually stretches back to February last year,
although it has emerged in the headlines in more recent weeks,
and I'll get to why that is. But basically, the
Australian Retail Association made an application to the Fair Work
Commission to make some changes to retail awards. That was
a massive word salad. So I'm going to break that
(02:31):
down a little bit. Yeah, I can see is.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
The Australian Retail Association.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
First of all, very good questions. So the Retail Association
is a professional body representing some of the big companies
and retailers around the country. So it does range from
some of the big businesses that we know about to
smaller businesses, and the bosses of those businesses that might
employ just five or six people can join up to
(02:59):
this association. But it's not an association for retail workers.
I'll just sort of make that point as a point
of clarity. So when I talk about retail awards, which
is the next thing I mentioned in my word salad, there,
an award is the formal set of conditions and pay
arrangements for retail staff or staff in a particular industry.
(03:23):
So if you work in hospitality, as you did, Emma,
you would be very familiar you are covered under a
certain industry awards. So when I worked at Macis back
in the day is my very first job, I was
covered by the Fast Food Award and I remember on
my pay slip, I would have the very specific award
title and details, and I could go and check that
at any time to see what I was in title
(03:45):
to as an employee. So basically, what the Retail Association
has done is they've gone to the Fair Work Commission,
which the last piece of my salad is the Workplace Tribunal,
so it's sort of the one stop shop for a
lot of workplace disputes around the country. But they also
set the conditions of awards, so these specific industry awards,
(04:06):
and if you want to make changes to the award,
you have to go to the Fairwork Commission. And that's
what the Retail Association has done, and it's put forward
a number of proposals.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Okay, so the Retail Association is a group representing a
bunch of companies, brands, retailers. They've gone to the Fairwork Commission,
that's the employment and industrial regulator putting forward these changes.
So what is the Retail Association pushing to change?
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Yeah, so there were initially seventeen proposed changes that the
Retail Association was calling for. They range from some very
technical sort of wording in the retail awards. So as
it stands, you can agree to certain things with your
employer in writing. Now, there are notes in the Retail
award that says that in writing can also mean an
email or a text message. So what the Retail Association
(04:57):
wants to do is just sort of scrap those notes
and say that this could include digital records as well
as written records. Very technical thing.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Just modernizing, making it a bit clearer.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Absolutely, Okay, so they seem to be a little bit
less controversial, But then when we get into some of
the other award changes that it's looking into, it gets
a little bit more murky. So one of the changes
they want to make to the award is cutting the
minimum gap between shifts from twelve to ten hours. Anyone
who works in hospitality could tell you that that's the
(05:30):
rule in restaurants in bars around the country. For fast food,
there's actually no minimum set time between your shifts.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
So when you say like a minimum gap, you mean,
for example, your shift finishes at nine pm, that there
are awards to protect workers from being rostered on any
earlier than nine am the next day.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
That's right, and for all retail staff. If these award
changes go through, that means that they could be rusted
on for seven am next day instead. The association said
it would bring it in line with other industries, that
it's pretty standard this change. And it's also looking at
what's called salary absorption. You can forget that word for
now because that's the technical meaning, but I'll go into
(06:14):
what that actually looks like. So this is a situation
involving higher paid retail staff. So we think of like
managers or supervisors of a store or a two ic
at a fashion retailer, for instance. So for these workers,
they would lose their rights to overtime and penalty rates,
so think like weekends or public holidays, and they wouldn't
(06:37):
get allowances for things like their work clothes or a
meal break or something like that. And they also would
lose their entitlement to those short rest breaks that we
come to know as like a smoke oh back in
the day. So some workers might want to go out
and get a drink of water or have some tea.
Depends what you want to do in those little ten
(06:57):
minute timeframes.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
So under the retailer will there are different entitlements for
breaks depending on how long your shift is. You might
have a longer lunch break, but you might also have
a shorter ten or fifteen break to just go and
chill out.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Yeah, if you're well on your phone, that's right. So
if you're working between say three and five hours, you're
typically entitled to about a ten minute break. That's pretty standard.
What the Retail Association wants to do for the higher
level managers is sort of scrap that, right, But in exchange,
these workers would actually get paid more. So the increase
would be at least twenty five percent above the current
(07:32):
national minimum standard for this level of employee, and at
the moment that's about fifty four thousand dollars a year,
and that would go up to sixty seven thousand dollars
a year. Gay.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
So under these proposed changes, people that work in retail
management positions would forego some of those rights that you mentioned,
like certain breaks, penalty rates, over time, et cetera. But
in exchange, they would get a twenty five percent pay
increase that could see salary is go from about fifty
four thousand dollars a year to I think you mentioned
(08:04):
sixty seven thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
That's right, and it wouldn't be an enforced change e though.
It's just important to note that that there would actually
have to be agreement between the employee and the employee
if this was to take effect. Okay, So, as I mentioned,
it could be a written record, could be a digital
record of just signing away that waiver of entitlements to
extra pay.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Okay. So what strikes me about these reforms is it
does feel a little bit unusual to see a conversation
like this happen between like a body representing the businesses
looking to change the options available to retail workers, rather
than a blanket rule that sort of flips their circumstances
(08:46):
and either forces them in or out of something. So
why is this happening now? Has the Retail Association said
why they want to make these changes and why they've
gone to fair Work to sort of hammer that out?
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Yes, So, in its very rich application back in February,
the Retail Association said that as it stands, the award
is really complicated and anyone that's had a look at
the document might agree with them. So they wanted to
introduce some of these changes as a way of promoting
a bit more flexibility, making things a little bit simpler.
And they also wanted to make these changes to make
(09:21):
it easier to clarify some work conditions between employee and employer.
So that's kind of at the heart of why they
are pushing for these changes. And as I mentioned, it
has been dragging on for a little while now, but
the reason I came across it is because recently there
have been some of these really big employers in Australia
who have supported this move. So when you think about
(09:44):
retail workers instantly, you would probably think about a big
business like Coals or kmart or Barbecues Galore maybe, and
these are all companies that are now backing in this
move in the Fairwork Commission. They've joined the Australian Retailers
Associations bid to have these provisions put in place, and
(10:05):
that's all seventeen of the initial proposals put forward by
the Retails Association. So I mentioned very technical changes right
through to that higher end salary earner getting more pay
in exchange for changes to what they are entitled to.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Right. I'm really interested in hearing how workers are responding
to this because I guess hearing this idea of the
twenty five percent pay increase for more senior retail workers,
that does sound like a significant pay increase, especially, you
know when we talk about ongoing pay negotiations across more
public service work. There's been high profile conversations about that lately,
(10:42):
and often they're arguing over five to ten to fifteen percent,
So twenty five percent sounds significant. But on the other side,
when you think about penalty rates, often penalty rates can
be a twenty five to fifty percent loading, depending on
the circumstances. So how do workers feel about a shift
in their rights? What's the response been.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
I guess the argument has been framed in that way
that you do sort of give up certain rights in
order to get a pay increase. And yeah, I've been
really interested in this question as well because it is
a really interesting sort of dilemma that you could be
put into, because I'm sure everybody would agree that it
sounds nice to get a pay increase, but it comes
(11:24):
with conditions. So the unions which represent workers have come
out really stridently against these proposed changes. The peak union body,
the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said that the changes
would affect one million retail workers in varying capacities. So
that's from changing the minimum gap between the shifts to
(11:46):
the higher paid managers and supervisors. The ACTU have accused
some of these big companies that have announced their support
for the changes of trying to cut pay and conditions
in what they say is the guy of workplace flexibility.
That's in their words.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Okay, so they're suggesting that the Retail Association might be
trying to look like they're creating more options and evening
out the playing field for workers. But the union is
arguing that that's a bit of a disguise.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
This smoke screen is what they say. That's kind of
their wording. I think it's just important to note that
the Retailers Association has disputed a lot of the union's claims,
especially that this would lead to lower wages and poorer conditions.
They point to some other industry awards that have similar
arrangements in place and say that that has been broadly successful.
(12:36):
But whenever we talk about workplace relations or workplace disputes,
I feel like it gets political pretty quickly, and the
unions have already linked to this case to the upcoming
federal election, which needs to be held by the seventeenth
of May. For anyone that needs reminding, the ACTU assistant
Secretary Joseph Mitchell said Australians deserve to know which side
(12:58):
their politicians are on. Are they on the side of
big business profitiers seeking to cut people's wages or on
the side of cost of living relief measures that have
got wages moving again, that's in Joseph Mitchell's words. I've
tried to get this answer for him because I was
really curious what our politicians are thinking about this matter.
So the Employment Minister Murray Watt told TDA that he
(13:21):
does have some concerns about the case at the moment,
especially if it's going to mean some changes to worker entitlements.
He also said he had a question for the coalition
he pivoted to asking whether if they won the election,
would they protect big businesses cutting workers' wages during a
cost of living squeeze. So I heard back from Murray
Watt's counterpart, who is the Shadow Employment Minister, Michaylia Cash,
(13:45):
who dismissed his remarks, saying that it's just a baseless
scare campaign in her words, driven by the government and
the unions.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Okay, so some pretty strong words from both the government
and the opposition and the Business Association. The Retailers Association,
So when are we expecting an outcome? It doesn't sound
like there are many people on the same page in
this debate. It is ongoing in the Fair Work Commission.
(14:16):
Is there a resolve in sight?
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Well, there will be a case hearing over ten days
starting on the seventeenth of March, and I'll definitely be
keeping a close eye on it. But while I'm at it,
I just wanted to mention there's another case that's really
grabbed my attention in recent days, and that involves former
staff at the jewelry company Levisa.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
As a woman of a certain age who may or
may not have purchased a lot of jewelry from Levisa
after school, or may have been adorned in her year
ten formal jewelry by Levisa. I was very interested in
this story because along with this fair work story, that's
some pretty high profile businesses caught up in a kind
(14:58):
of retail conversation at the moment about worker entitlements.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Yeah. Absolutely, you go to many malls in or shopping
centers in Australia, you'll probably stumble across all a visa.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
So it's yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Something that I feel like affects a lot of people
in the country.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
So what's happening with these former staff.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Yeah, so these Lavisa workers or former employees have taken
the company to the Federal Court over allegations that they
were underpaid and exploited. So this is a class action
involving more than three hundred people who had worked at
Laviza places like Canberra and Melbourne. And these were employees
(15:33):
who had worked there between twenty eighteen and twenty twenty four.
So the court documents spell out some of the allegations
against Laviza. So these workers are accusing the company of
failing to pay them minimum wages, telling staff not to
take meal or toilet brakes, and not paying overtime. There
are also some really fascinating stories which I must add
(15:55):
up all allegations of this stage. But this involves a
manager going to another store to close up because the
staff that had been there at the time weren't fully
trained or experienced enough to close up a store, so
just knowing the end of day procedures and practices, and
this worker claims that they had to go back to
their original store after doing that and perform a similar task.
(16:19):
What is being alleged is that when traveling between these stores.
You're normally entitled to a travel allowance, so that's just
to pay for fuel that you've used to help out
the company. These personal alledg is that Levisa never paid
them for traveling between the stores.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
So the claim is that they were someone with enough
experience to close up the shop that understaffing issues meant
that there weren't those senior people in other stores, and
they've had to kind of go between different shops allegedly
to be that senior person, but haven't been adequately compensated
for their.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Travel time exactly right, And those kind of stories is
what's being heard at the moment in the federal court
and tested against evidence. Of course, one of these other
stories that really stood out to me was that as
a Lavisa employee, you have to wear sometimes up to
five pieces of jewelry. It's all part of the merchandising
and branding of the company. So what some of these
(17:12):
workers are alleging is that there was a common plastic
bag of jewelry for the staff to wear when they
were working, and when they would wear some of this jewelry,
it would turn their skin grain. So I'm sure anyone
who has had jewelry that has gotten a bit old
or something can probably relate to this experience. And so
(17:33):
what some of the stuff would do was then buy
their own Levisa jewelry and under the rules and under
the conditions of working there, they were expected to be
compensated for that jewelry. But they alleged that Levisa never
reimburse them for the cost of the jewelry, interesting, which
they under the rules as well, also had to wear
if they were going to be serving customers and helping
(17:55):
people out around the store, they needed to be wearing.
This story, so sort of stuck in a bind there.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
I'm always really interested in how different brands kind of
set the rules for things like uniform and presentation, because
when we're talking about retail, particularly fashion retail, you know,
it's almost like the employees are physical visual merchandising products themselves.
You know, you walk into a shop, you see someone
wearing something looks great, you want to know that you
(18:21):
can get it too. So it is fascinating to learn allegedly,
you know, the claims of how the machine kind of
works from the inside.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
Absolutely, and it is important to note that Lavisa has
acknowledged the lawsuit and said, it'll defend itself against the claims.
So Emma, I'm going to be toggling between the Fair
Work Commission, the Federal Court and Federal Parliament over the
next few months, so you'll know where to find me
if you're looking for me.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Thank you so much, Harry. It sounds like you're going
to have a great time.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Ah, I sure will. All these things that keep the
country going, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Yeah, the important stories that Matta. Thank you so much
for breaking that down for us, Harry. Some real big
and complicated cases there, but all of you know, national
scale and ongoing, and we will keep you updated. As
Harry mentioned, thank you so much for listening to today's
episode of The Daily os. If you learn something, feel
(19:15):
free to share it with a friend. Don't forget to
subscribe or follow wherever you listen to the podcast or
if you're watching us over on YouTube. Hello. We will
be back later on today with the evening headlines, but
until then, have a fabulous day.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda
bunge lung Kalkotin woman from Gadigl Country. The Daily oz
acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands of
the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to
the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!