Majority report
Background
1.1
The committee's inquiry in to the Workplace Relations
Amendment (Protecting Small Business Employment) Bill 2004, which was
introduced into the parliament in May 2004, lapsed when parliament was
prorogued for the 2004 federal election. The committee resumed its inquiry when
the Government introduced into the parliament a similar bill, but under a
different title, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Small Business Employment
Protection) Bill 2004.
The purpose of the bill
1.2
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to limit redundancy
pay obligations to businesses which employ fifteen or more employees. The bill
overturns the March 2004 Test Case decision of the full bench of the Australian
Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which imposed redundancy pay
obligations on small businesses with fewer than fifteen employees. The
imposition of redundancy pay on small businesses was not a serious issue in state
jurisdiction before the AIRC decision in 2004. The majority of states had long
recognised the need to protect small businesses from redundancy pay.[1] However, the AIRC decision has created
conflict between state and commonwealth jurisdictions, with different small
businesses in the same area facing vastly different redundancy obligations on
the basis of whether or not they are covered by a federal award.[2] The bill removes this conflict between
state and commonwealth jurisdictions arising from the AIRC decision.
1.3
Under the provisions of the bill, any variations to
awards made after the Test Case decision which have imposed pay obligations on
small businesses will have no effect. The bill excludes constitutional
corporations which employ fewer than fifteen employees from redundancy pay
obligations which may be imposed by state laws or state awards. Also, under the
bill only casuals employed on a long term systemic basis for twelve months will
be included for the purpose of determining the number of workers employed by a
small business.
1.4
A supplementary decision by the AIRC in June 2004 recognised
that small businesses may not have the financial reserves necessary to meet
redundancy obligations immediately. The Commission decided that the severance
pay scale to apply to small business should not take into account service
rendered prior to the operative date of any order giving effect to the original
decision.[3] The effect of the
supplementary decision is to defer any requirement for small businesses to make
redundancy payments for one year, and to defer full payments for up to four
years. However, as the submission by DEWR pointed out, after four years the
redundancy pay scale will apply in full and small businesses will be exposed to
the full cost impact of redundancy pay.[4]
1.5
The committee emphasises that the bill is designed to
preserve the status quo; that is, it preserves an exemption that has existed
for twenty years under the federal industrial system which, in ACCI's view,
represents a valid, reasonable and balanced approach to the operation of
minimum redundancy payments in Australia.
The committee agrees with DEWR's assessment that the history of the exemption
from redundancy pay for small business demonstrates that the original rationale
for the exemption remains valid today. This is why the committee accepts the view
advanced by industry groups that the AIRC's decision is at odds with a range of
evidence on the fundamental incapacity of small businesses to meet additional
financial obligations. A fuller response to the AIRC's decision is provided
later in this report.
1.6
The committee notes that under the current industrial
relations system there is no review or appeal process to reconsider the merits
of the Commissions' Test Case decisions. It believes the legislation should be
passed as a matter of urgency because most small businesses covered by federal
awards will eventually be subject to redundancy payments for their employees. There
is nothing unusual or new in parliament correcting decisions of the AIRC. ACCI
noted in its submission that correcting AIRC decisions is a perfectly
legitimate and accepted approach to public policy, in appropriate
circumstances. The committee believes that the Commission has invited statutory
intervention upon itself on this occasion as a result of its decision. The
committee also notes that the Commission's decision is already beginning to be
felt in a number of state jurisdictions. UnionsWA, the peak union body in Western
Australia, has already lodged proceedings with the
Western Australian Industrial relations Commission. The Queensland Council of
Unions has also requested the Queensland Industrial relations Commission to re-list
the redundancy test case in that jurisdiction.[5]
Why the AIRC Test Case decision should be overturned
1.7
The committee believes that the Commission's decision
seriously underestimated the impact that redundancy pay obligations will have
on economic growth and further job creation in the small business sector. The
AiG was forthright in its submission, describing the Commission's decision as
delivering a 'body blow' to jobs. Small business is the largest employer of
full-time labour in Australia,
with approximately half a million small businesses operating which employ
around 2 million Australians.[6]
1.8
It is common sense to expect that if left unattended, the
Commission's decision will result in a significant decline in jobs growth and
an increase in insolvencies in the small business sector. This is because small
businesses generally lack the financial resilience to meet redundancy pay
obligations, routinely encounter difficulties obtaining adequate finance to
address business restructures and redundancies, and find it difficult to build
up financial reserves to cover the costs of retrenchment. Small businesses'
lack of financial resilience is the main reason why state industrial tribunals in
the past have exempted small businesses from redundancy pay. The committee
notes that the redundancy obligations arising from the Commission's decision
are in addition to the exposure of small businesses to termination payments and
unfair dismissal laws.
1.9
At the public hearing, Mr
Scott Barklamb
from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), told the committee
that not only does the Commission's decision fail to meet the commonsense test,
it also defies logic particularly in relation to the impact of the decision on
business costs, cash flow, profitability and the viability of small business:
It seems to us a relatively simple proposition that Australia's
smallest businesses, at the community and local level – run...by the mums and
dads in the local strip shopping centres – simply do not have these amounts of
money to access to pay additional benefits precisely when they are facing
adversity.[7]
1.10
It is widely recognised that small businesses differ in
many important ways from medium to large businesses, which was not given
sufficient weight by the Commission in its decision. As DEWR pointed point out
in its submission, small businesses tend to be chronically undercapitalised, they
lack the financial resilience to meet large commitments such as redundancy pay,
and are more likely to go out of business in the earlier years of operation.[8] The imposition of redundancy pay on
small businesses is therefore unacceptable, given that they account for nearly
half of private sector, non-agricultural employment in Australia.
1.11
The committee notes a recent decision of the Full Bench
of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC), in which significant
arguments and evidence were presented about the detrimental impact on small
business of removing the redundancy pay exemption. According to the AiG, the
QIRC's decision to retain the exemption for small businesses pointed to the
unique characteristics of small businesses including their lack of financial
resilience, their smaller cash reserves and the potential for redundancy pay
obligations resulting in small business insolvencies.[9]
1.12
The Commission's decision also places Australia
at odds with international regulatory practice. The AiG drew the committee's
attention to an international comparative study of redundancy pay obligations
across jurisdictions, carried out by Melbourne
University researcher, Mr
Mark Roberts.
The study shows that relatively few advanced countries provide for
employer-funded severance payments to be made to employees upon redundancy.[10]
1.13
In reaching its decision, the Commission gave consideration
to three main arguments: small business is generally profitable, some small
businesses make severance payments despite the absence of a legal liability to
do so, and the absence of any evidence to suggest that small business is less
profitable or more likely to fail in jurisdictions where the small business
exemption does not exist. The committee was told repeatedly by employer groups
that the reasoning used by the AIRC to support its conclusion about the
capacity of most small businesses to cope with redundancy pay is fundamentally
flawed and does not bear close scrutiny The submission from ACCI argued that
the Commission's decision contained 'manifest error', principally because it
confused the profitability of small businesses with their capacity to afford
the cost of redundancy payments without damaging employment growth.[11] The committee accepts the evidence
from DEWR and ACCI that each of the arguments advanced by the Commission, or
the inference drawn from them, is flawed.
1.14
The conclusion reached by DEWR in its submissions is
worth quoting at length because it captures the flavour of industry concerns:
The central flaw in the AIRC's decision was to confuse
profitability with capacity to pay redundancy. The decision did not give
sufficient regard to the substantial body of evidence and argument that shows
that small businesses generally do not have the financial resilience to cope
with redundancy pay, irrespective of whether or not they are making a profit.[12]
Why the incapacity to pay provisions are inadequate
1.15
The committee heard less than convincing evidence from
the ACTU and other unions about the effectiveness of provisions which were first
put in place by the Commission in 1984, which enable employers to argue
incapacity to pay. Incapacity to pay enables employers who genuinely cannot
afford redundancy pay to apply to the Commission to have their obligations
reduced or removed altogether. While unions hold the view that the current
incapacity to pay system provides sufficient flexibility to enable employers
who genuinely cannot meet their redundancy pay obligations to readily seek an
exemption, evidence to support this claim was not presented to the committee.[13]
1.16
Evidence before the committee from employer groups,
particularly the National Farmers Federation (NFF), rejected the claim by the
ACTU that the incapacity to pay process works effectively. The NFF submission
highlighted numerous administrative shortcomings with the current process, and
painted a realistic picture of the frustration experienced by farmers who have
filed applications with the Commission seeking exemptions, particularly in
times of prolonged drought. The NFF concluded from its experience over many
years dealing with incapacity to pay claims, that the current procedures used
by the AIRC for demonstrating incapacity 'effectively render the provision as
inaccessible for small business'. The NFF maintained that it is nearly
impossible for small businesses to successfully prosecute an incapacity to pay
claim, resulting in many small businesses which may have been entitled to some
financial relief not bothering to access the process:
...the evidentiary and procedural requirements are so onerous that
it results in substantial stress and significant administrative and cost
burdens on a small business, which effectively precludes the use of the
provision by small business. NFF submits, therefore, that incapacity to pay
claims cannot be regarded as an effective fallback provision for small business.[14]
1.17
The committee is particularly concerned by the
inflexible nature of the incapacity to pay process, especially the unique
circumstances canvassed in the NFF submission where farmers in receipt of
Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payments (ECRP) sought an automatic delay to
the 2003 national wage increase for farmers. The NFF told the committee that
although it had sought a simplified incapacity to pay claim on behalf of
farmers, many farmers withdrew their interest in making an application because
the process was seen to be cumbersome and intrusive. The process required
scrutiny of the private financial records of farmers, even when they had already
qualified for ECRP under Centrelink's strict requirements. Of particular
concern is the ability of unions to access and scrutinise farmers' private
financial records even if the employees on site are not union members.
1.18
The committee agrees with the NFF that farmers already
in receipt of emergency drought relief funding should not be required to
demonstrate to the Commission incapacity to pay. This is an unnecessary
duplication of process which is clearly discouraging many farmers from filing
applications with the Commission. It also finds union involvement in the
process inappropriate and a major disincentive for farmers. The committee does
not believe that unions should have an automatic right to access private
financial records and a capacity to object to any claims, especially in
circumstances where claims for emergency drought relief payments have already
been approved.[15]
1.19
Overall, the committee is concerned by the obvious
deficiencies with the Commission's current incapacity to pay process. Evidence
before the committee demonstrates that the process is cumbersome, inefficient
and discourages small businesses, particularly in the farming sector, from
filing applications for exemptions with the Commission. The time and cost of
making and pursuing an application are considerable. The committee believes
that the Commission should examine ways to simplify the process and make it
more accessible to farmers and other small businesses experiencing financial difficulty.
Conclusion
1.20
In considering the evidence before this inquiry, the
Committee majority concludes that the case mounted in support of this bill by
employer groups is straightforward and compelling. Simply stated, the
fundamental grounds for exempting small businesses from redundancy pay
obligations are the limited financial capacities of small businesses and the
effects of removing the exemption on small business employment and on the
economy more generally.[16]
1.21
The committee is not opposed to small businesses
voluntarily negotiating redundancy pay for employees where they can afford to
do so. This is a sensible approach to enterprise bargaining which ensures
employees receive their entitlements when an employers' actual capacity to pay
exists, often resulting from an increase in workplace productivity. However, the
committee does not support the creation of an arbitrated, compulsory award
safety net obligation which compels small businesses to make payments to their
employees in all situations. The committee can not see any sense imposing on
small businesses a redundancy pay obligation which cannot be met.
1.22
The committee notes that the supplementary decision of
the AIRC, which provides approximately a twelve month transitional period
before the full impact of the substantive decision is felt, to some extent
recognised the unique financial position of small businesses. Be that as it may,
the committee believes that any respite offered by the supplementary decision
will be short lived. As of July 2005, small businesses will be forced to assume
redundancy pay obligations of up to 4 weeks, which equates to at least an
additional $2000 for each employee. This is an unacceptable financial burden for
the small business sector. The committee is aware that the extra financial
burden will come into play precisely when small businesses are least likely to
be able to afford it. This is why the immediate passage of the bill is necessary
before the full impact of the Commission's decision is felt, to ensure the
viability and survival of struggling small businesses.
Recommendation
The committee majority recommends that the Senate pass this bill.
Senator John Tierney
Chair