Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA

Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Changes to Legal Services Award sought amid COVID-19

Thirteen law firms have requested changes to Fair Work rules in light of coronavirus, with one legal advocacy group saying such changes would set “a dangerous precedent”.

user iconJerome Doraisamy 21 May 2020 Big Law
Sydney
expand image

Last Friday, 13 law firms – Corrs Chambers Westgarth, MinterEllison, Hall & Wilcox, Johnson Winter & Slattery, Arnold Bloch Leibler, Maddocks, Ashurst, Wotton + Kearney, Herbert Smith Freehills, Gilbert + Tobin, Allen & Overy, Gadens and Clayton Utz – lodged an “application to vary a modern award” with the Fair Work Commission to amend the Legal Services Award (the award) in light of COVID-19.

In the application, the firms submitted that variations to the award are necessary to achieve the modern awards objective in light of the global coronavirus pandemic.

Changes being sought

Specifically, the firms sought to add a new schedule – “Schedule I – Award Flexibility during the COVID-19 pandemic” – which, among other things, would “allow permanent employees to agree to reduce their working hours to not fewer than 75 per cent of current hours” without displacing common rights for employers and employees to agree to changes, and to “provide for increased operational flexibility by varying the minimum engagement for part-time and casual employees working from home and the spread of ordinary hours of work” for day workers at home.

In addition, the new proposed schedule would allow firms to direct staff to take annual leave in a week’s notice.

The firms proposed that such a new schedule be temporary and operational until 30 June 2020.

“The proposed variation is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective of a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions. Fairness in this context is to be assessed from the perspective of the employees and employers covered by the modern award in question. The law firms note that what is ‘necessary’ to achieve fairness in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic may be different to what is required to achieve fairness outside of this context,” the application argued.

“A trade-off is required to maintain business while trying to maintain employment. Employees may be willing, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, to trade off particular employment benefits to maintain their employment and receive some income  Additional operational flexibility may also allow some businesses to hold off taking other, more drastic steps.”

The nature of revenue generation in law, the firms continued, “results in significant delays between a business providing services and receiving payment for those services”.

“Employers in the industry are required to continue to pay employees prior to being aware if they will receive revenue for their services. In this context, the legal services industry requires mechanisms that provide for immediate flexibility to promptly minimise labour costs and assist cash flow. This will allow businesses in the industry to retain as many employees in employment as possible and preserve the viability of businesses,” the application posited.

‘A dangerous precedent’?

The NSW Society of Labor Lawyers said it understands that COVID-19 has presented novel economic and professional challenges for law firms to adjust to, but “for a legal industry that has historically not been unionised, such applications, brought by law firms without direct input from the affected workers, are a dangerous precedent to set”.

“All workers should be entitled to the protection of a minimum award standard of wages and conditions, including the many workers in the legal profession in Australia,” the society said in a statement.

“Fortunately for the legal profession, our trade unions are taking steps to oppose the application to vary the award and provide counterarguments to the Fair Work Commission. These actions are done on behalf of persons affected by the Award, whether they are union members or not.”

At times like a global pandemic, it is “crucial” that all legal employees understand the danger of complacency about one’s employment security, the society argued.

“You may not be impacted by any changes to the award, but chances are, you work with someone that is. Those workers who are covered by, and paid in accordance with, the award, are often the more vulnerable workers in your workplace,” it warned.

Jerome Doraisamy

Jerome Doraisamy

Jerome Doraisamy is the managing editor of Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader. He is also the author of The Wellness Doctrines book series, an admitted solicitor in New South Wales, and a board director of the Minds Count Foundation.

You can email Jerome at: jerome.doraisamy@momentummedia.com.au 

Comments (8)
  • Avatar
    It does seem that those firms who have truer salaries/ profits at the top, for those who can more easily cope with reduced income, have taken the right approach. Employees now know which firms to mie to in the future, and which to avoid.
    0
  • Avatar
    @ Anonycat - not sure which law firm you work for, but I'm pretty certain most equity partners are ploughing money into their businesses right now, to keep afloat until the profits return.
    1
  • Avatar
    Employees of law firms need to unionise. Law firms are taking collective action against employees. I get the union is representing employees, but how many are actually union representatives and have vocalised their concerns to the union? I'm not sure firms even need to do this to get the desired result, but either way the concerns of junior lawyers/employees will be unheard if they don't speak up. And on the other side of pandemic/recession how will we even know when profits have picked up? Will law firms launch another action to change to award back to what it was?
    1
    • Avatar
      I 100 % agree with you. Law firms need to unionise and whoever this union is (I imagine ASU/USU) - they should make themselves known and push. But it takes two to tango. Lawyers themselves need to vocalise their concerns more and foster their own industrial strength. They must put pressure on the union themselves to do something and then unions will be in a better position to organise amongst the legal profession. Strength in numbers. If the union don’t hear from us, why would the union use their resources to help us.
      0
  • Avatar
    Partners who want to take on massive profits from their employees should be willing to take on the risk that the market will change and they will not have to make such profits. Why should the most junior employees be put out of work or hours cut, when they are the least able to afford it. These firms want all of the reward and none of the risk.
    3
  • Avatar
    As a new law graduate, the reality is I may not get a job until COVID 19 is finished (when a cure is found). As an employer of a small business, I can see the benefits on both sides. Yes, the employers will suffer less but the employee will have a job to continue with.
    I have watched several small law firms close in the last few months. I have watched many associates become unemployed because they would not agree to reduce their hours. I have listened to so many carry on about they can't just sit at home for the normal operating day because **. Too many excuses.
    It is not like they have toddlers underfoot distracting them because the daycare centres are open.
    I support this!
    0
    • Avatar
      Kindness goes a long way Friday, 22 May 2020
      You understand that not all small children go to daycare, right? They may well be at home with the other parent, or with a nanny. And as much as I tell my almost 2 year old that I'm working, that doesn't stop her banging on the office door and yelling MAMA during teleconferences. And any children who are in the high risk category, or who have immediate family members in the high-risk category, may have been kept out of daycare even though it was open. Have a little compassion, please.
      0
    • Avatar
      Someone who has never worked in the profession supports this!
      0
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!