Workers, including Sydney cleaner Prashanta Shrestha, have won greater protection against unfair dismissal and loss of entitlements, according to the union that helped him and 18 others recover $70,000 in redundancy payments.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Fair Work Commission has awarded the cleaners entitlements they lost when transferred to a new company after their former employer lost a cleaning contract with two Sydney hotels.
United Voice NSW secretary Mel Gatfield said the case was "hugely significant, not just for the 19 cleaners who've now received $70,000 in redundancy payments, but for the legal precedent it sets".
"Workers who are transferred over to a new contractor now have greater protection from unfair dismissal, losing their parental leave, and being denied flexible work arrangements," she said.
"This is particularly significant for United Voice members, who are typically employed in contracting industries."
Ms Gatfield said 19 of 54 housekeepers made redundant last year were union members who did not have the resources to fight their unfair treatment on their own.
"Of the 54 housekeepers made redundant, only the 19 who were union members won redundancy payments in the FWC," Ms Gatfield said.
Sodexo Australia, which dismissed the cleaners after it lost a cleaning contract, argued it was relieved of having to pay full redundancy entitlements because it had found the employees "acceptable" alternative employment. The Crowne Plaza Coogee and Crowne Plaza Potts Point awarded the cleaning contract previously held by Sodexo to Challenger Hospitality late last year.
Employees who had worked for Sodexo for two to 21 years said they were told their services were no longer wanted before they were re-employed by Challenger Hospitality.
But with less than 12 months of service with the new employer, the employees complained they were unable to request flexible working arrangements because their tenure with the previous contractor was not recognised.
Fair Work Commission deputy president Peter Sams said offers of re-employment to some of the 19 employees "could not objectively constitute 'acceptable employment' in circumstances where they were dismissed, without reason, within weeks of commencing their employment, or were forced to resign because of misrepresentations made to them as to maintenance of the same terms and conditions of employment".
"Such outcomes were unconscionable. They were unfair and unreasonable," he said.
Mr Shrestha, of the Sydney suburb of Granville, said he was happy with the Fair Work Commission decision. He had wanted to request flexible working conditions because his wife was having a baby this year.
He has worked as a cleaner since 2013 when he emigrated to Australia from Nepal.
"I am satisfied with the outcome," he said.
"The agency which did not get its contract renewed wanted to get away with not paying the entitlements we were supposed to get.
"I believe the decision by the Fair Work Commission to reward us with the entitlements sends a message to those people who do not wish to comply with the rules and regulations."
