Employment Law: Rotational System, Dress Code, Social Media Policy

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1EMPLOYMENT LAW
Chapter 12
Problem 1
Question 1
The General Manager at the Grace Fish & Game Company wishes to implement a
rotational system of workers who would work for a stipulated period at one plant and then shift
into the next designated plant after the completion of the same term. In order to determine the
viability of implementing such a change the following conditions would have to be considered
by the company (Stewart 2013):
 The training procedure for the different plants and if such a process forms a part of the
employment contract of the workers.
 The training for the sales staff relating to their new mode of operation through ipads and
if the same is a part of the employment contract.
 If under the contract of employment the employees have consented to such rotational
work environments.
 The health and safety regulations relating to the operations at both plants must also be
considered to ensure that the workers are safeguarded against abrupt accidents and
injuries of the same kind.
Once the above factors are considered by the company they would have to further ensure
that such a step in which the movement and rotation costs are paid for by the company would be
financially feasible for the company (Blanpain and Bisom-Rapp 2014). If it is financially feasible

2EMPLOYMENT LAW
the risks involved in changing the course of work in such an abrupt manner must also be
considered.
Question 2
In case the company faces opposition when implementing the same the company would
have to assess the most effective way to change the employment conditions with a degree of
flexibility which would be accepted by the employees.
In case of opposition the company would need a plan of action which would cater to the
concerns of the employees (Painter and Holmes 2015). This can be curbed by implementing the
following steps (Rudman 2013):
 Provision of safety and training staff would ensure that the equipment and procedures
relating to the same are effectively undertaken.
 The staff can be offered bonuses based on their operations in the plants and the shift
timings and rotation routines could be scheduled in a way that is agreeable for the staff.
 The staff can be offered comfortable transportation options. This would likely deter
opposition against rotational shifts that require movement to different locations.
 The staff can also be assured medical insurance and other monetary incentives that are
likely to deter opposition.
 The can also maintain a roster that records specific dates when employees would be
available for such a rotational shift. Considering employee needs would deter opposition
an amended course of employment.

3EMPLOYMENT LAW
Problem 2
The judgment in Woolworths Limited v Dawson [PR Q7716] 1 March 1999 the court laid
down various cautionary steps that employers must take when rigidly enforcing a dress code
(Howe, Hardy and Cooney 2013). One such limitation to enforcing a dress code is in relation to
enforcement of a new dress code or uniform. When enforcing such an amendment to the standard
employment contract the accepted standards that have been in practice among long standing
employees of the organization must be considered. Employees who have served the organization
for a considerable amount of time must have the right to continue dress as they have been
through their course of employment.
It has been decided in the case of Grant v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 42 that an
employer may mandate his employees to undergo a medical examination (Gollan and Patmore
2013). However such an examination would not be mandatory unless the requirement of the
employment profile specifically needs such an evaluation.
It has been decided in the judgment in CFMEU v North Goonyella Coal Mine Pty Ltd
[2013] FCA 1444 that an employer may direct his employees not to display union campaign
material in the lunchroom. However the same would have certain limitations. If there is an
ongoing collective bargaining process or there are valid employee grievances that must be
discussed the employer would not ideally be able to restrict such a process.
It was held in the judgment in Thorne v Jura Australia Espresso Pty Ltd [2012] FWA
4954 that employers can direct employees to not access office computers in their personal but the
same cannot be restricted when the employee is working on behalf of the company in his