Hurry Up! Get 15% Please upload the order before 31st january 2019. T&C applied Order now !
review
Back to Samples

Recommendations to better off overall test

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OR ABSTRACT

This report describes the studies and research related to changes needed in the performance of Better off overall test Fair work act introduced in 2010 in the replacement of no disadvantage test prevailing through the previous years. The report thus highlights the key points on the changes that this test need to carry out so as to draw a conclusion for the betterment of the employees. It is to be noted that the purpose of the act was to examine and give classes to employees by the Fair work Australia. Thus in order to do so they introduced a test which needs the employees at the test time with their evidence of awards.

Thus the report briefly discusses the situations to cope up with the failure of agreement to BOOT.

  • The recommendation in order to change the system of Better off over all test with respect to Fair Work Commission
  • Disadvantages of the current BOOT Fair work Act
  • Benefits after changing in accordance with the recommendation

The Fair Work Australia made it clear that a employee must be paid under an agreement which will be the award for the national wage system. The BOOT considers all the awards and the achievement that are taken into agreement. The test can never be satisfied if the means of doing so is to get address to the deficiencies such as award penalty rates and improved leave titles.

Table of Contents

  1. SCOPE AND ANALYSIS 4
    1. INTRODUCTION
    2. ORIGIN  AND EXECUTION
    3. FWA AND BOOT
    4. Difference between NDT and BOOT
  2. ANALYSIS OF BOOT 5
  3. APPLYING BETTER OFF OVERALL TEST.....................................................................6

 

  1. DIFFERENT APP ........
that this test need to carry out so as to draw a conclusion for the betterment of the employees. It is to be noted that the purpose of the act was to examine and give classes to employees by the Fair work Australia. Thus in order to do so they introduced a test which needs the employees at the test time with their evidence of awards.

Thus the report briefly discusses the situations to cope up with the failure of agreement to BOOT.

  • The recommendation in order to change the system of Better off over all test with respect to Fair Work Commission
  • Disadvantages of the current BOOT Fair work Act
  • Benefits after changing in accordance with the recommendation

The Fair Work Australia made it clear that a employee must be paid under an agreement which will be the award for the national wage system. The BOOT considers all the awards and the achievement that are taken into agreement. The test can never be satisfied if the means of doing so is to get address to the deficiencies such as award penalty rates and improved leave titles.

Table of Contents

  1. SCOPE AND ANALYSIS 4
    1. INTRODUCTION
    2. ORIGIN  AND EXECUTION
    3. FWA AND BOOT
    4. Difference between NDT and BOOT
  2. ANALYSIS OF BOOT 5
  3. APPLYING BETTER OFF OVERALL TEST.....................................................................6

 

  1. DIFFERENT APPROACHES OF NDT AND BOOT..........................................................7
  2. RESULTS AND OUTCOMES OF APPROACH...............................................................7
  3. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND BOOT.......................................................................7
  4. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................8

SCOPE AND ANALYSIS

This report examines the nature, benefits and disadvantages of the better off overall test by Fair work commission in Australia. It will not consider previous strategies or comment but will highlight the contemporary and current facts and figures regarding the same act.

INTRODUCTION

The nature of Better off overall test or BOOT can be referred to as the agreement or permission for an enterprise. It is not related to Greenfields agreement. Often these are considered similar but they are not. According to the Fair Work Commission, The BOOT is a point test which will satisfy the condition that the entire employee with award is better off overall. There is an agreement in such situation. The agreement will be in accordance with the entire modern award which is related to or of great significance to the employee.

The employees of an organisation needs to consider BOOT if they want themselves to be accepted by the FWA. The test requires an agreement to be gone under consent of the employee. This is required by the FWA, if it satisfies the need of the award covered than only there would be a test to be undergone with.

The test is subjective to Fair work Australia and further the FWA might pass an agreement without even approving the overall test. There are some exceptional circumstances where in the approval is not against the public interest. The representative of the Fair Work Australia makes it possible to pay taking in consider the agreement. This is less than the base rate if we know the relevant modern award.  If this situation arises the employee will be paid equivalent to the national minimum wage order rate or the award.

ORIGIN AND EXECUTION

There was no BOOT prior to January 1 , 2010 when Fair Work Commission initiated this new test in the substitution of No disadvantage test.  It was introduced in the same duration when the modern awards were introduced. The better off overall says that after the application for approval is passed all the needs required at time of test must be satisfied.

FWA AND BOOT

The FWA has set out various steps for approval of application and thus it also requires an agreement that is in need of approval. If the agreement does satisfy BOOT and also is restricted to the extra ordinary cases the approval will not be in contrast with the public interest.

The legislation has also set out an illustration to understand the approval section of the agreement. The example can be depicted when a sub-division of a strategy along with a crisis are in the direction to cope up the revival of the enterprise. This is included in the agreement itself. (Anthony Forsyth, Andrew Stewart, 2009)

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

 

Difference between NDT and BOOT

There are a lot of difference between NDT and BOOT which can be understood by the following points-

  • The language of NDT and BOOT is neither same nor similar. NDT is habitual to a test collective agreement which will be applicable till the end of 2009 i.e 31 December  2009. It is to be noted that the test was undertaken by the Rudd Government for its operation in 2008.
  • NDT has a collective agreement as mentioned above, it also directs towards a point that the workplace authority director must be agreed that the agreement of NDT has no conclusion for overall terms and its reduction. Also it does not take into account the situation of the workers which is based on the fact of reference instrument related to a single or more number of employees.
  • The NDT requirement is not simpler in comparison to that of boot.
  • The BOOT has much language for its operation. The different language of BOOT can redirect to a fact that there are many possible interpretation of these languages. Thus this may lead to practical difficulty or operational difficulty while practising BOOT.
  • The Better off Overall have increasing bar. The terms of condition of the employment might have slight changes which may lead to reduction in the value of the employees.
  • BOOT is meant for the entire award covered employee where as the NDT does not determine all the terms in principle subject to the agreement.

 

ANALYSIS OF BOOT

The present scenario of the provision made it simpler for all the employers to discuss that BOOT is an measure to refer to the Classes of employees while the language barely matter. The FWA is able to apply BOOT to almost all the classes and also it quotes that the BOOT at the time of test is in no general requirement of query into every employee as an individual. (William Breen Creighton, Anthony Forsyth, 2012)

The explanatory Memorandum also illustrates this with an example of Moss Hardware and Garden Supplies Pty Ltd.  The organisation made a commitment in its agreement to cover up almost 1800 workers in its national chain. The chain was of retail garden and hardware supply outlets. These workers were known to be in the category of award covered employees.

It categorised the classes into seven classes in the agreement which were basically related to the modern award. There are many worker and employees which were in contract with an agreement. This made each of them bound to be classified under the same theory.

FWA would now create a group of all these employees in the category to which they belong. This group are for the better off overall test. It is the purpose of the FWA to evaluate an imaginary employee which constitute in every of the agreement. The agreement is to be done taking into consideration the employees for the better off overall test under the modern classification. Also if the agreement is approved for the passing overall test the FWA can approve groups. The better off overall test covers individual employee with their perspective award and covered employees into the classification. Once the FWA is satisfied about the test the classification is done.

Then there is publication of statement in reference to intent. It is done in the Explanatory Memorandum. The credits to the classes are still not transparent in the legislation. The language in the system of BOOT directly suggests that all the needs, requirement and demand had to be fulfilled in case of each and every employee.

APPLYING BETTER OFF OVERALL TEST

There are several misconceptions when it comes to application of Better off overall test by FWA. The FWA has all the undertaking related to this assessment and evaluation system. In any case whether the BOOT is a success or failure the approval and application for the same purpose is always made.

S.206 AND THE AGREEMENT-

The s.206 mentioned in the Fair Work Act quotes that, if in the situation where minimum wage rates are given in the awards or in national minimum wage the frequency will not cross the pay rate in reference to the agreement done by the enterprise. In such cases the employers tends to pay high scale.( CCH Australia Limited, 2010)

ANALYSIS OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-

As analysed by the Department of Education, Employment and workplace relations submission the BOOT has operation in the life cycle of an organisation with respect to an agreement named as ‘True safety net’. This is set to be a proof for the query of the department. If it wants that Fair work Australia have to deal with similar concepts. The Australian Industries while maintaining its industrial relation commission has been implementing the WR Act in the year 1996 to the 2006

APPROVAL AND NEED-

Hence it was an original concept which was coined by the Howard Government for Work choices. If we compare the provision of the prevailing with that of the BOOT the s. 170XA of the WR act directs us that the agreement could be a loss for the worker who has been maintaining relation in respect to their terms and condition if its approval results in deduction of overall terms. This mean any approval or certification in the end cannot, on balance, be a failure in its decreasing rate for the employees with designation or relevant awards. Also it says that the commonwealth has a law which refers to a situation of a territory or state of a Commission.

This has been many a times criticised by the NDT which is application under the pre-reform WR Act.  The NDT in any case has more restriction than the BOOT. This can be related with an example, Sometimes there is actually no need to perform the test undertaken by the pre-reform WR Act. If it is satisfied in any case the award in respect to every employee has to be under the Fair Work Act. The WR Act against NDT could not be beneficial when it has basis upon the Employment Advocate and Commission about the schedule of the test. Thus is sometimes judged narrower in terms of class of instruments. Comparing with the current situation the provision of the NDT as led by the Rudd government in transitional legislation has focused on nature of the NDT in global terms. This required the decrement of terms and condition of all the covered employees. This sort of approach cannot be implemented directly without any adverse effect.

 

DIFFERENT APPROACHES OF NDT AND BOOT

As mentioned above the approaches have different aspects and modification according to them. These cannot be directly applied as they have many restrictions as per the Fair work Act.

The agreement becomes impermissible hence in order to edit or modify the needs of the National Employment standards it requires a lot of changes. These changes can include titles like working hours, different category of leaves. 

These matter leads to a possibility for FWA to develop different approaches for the execution of BOOT and NDT in many cases from 1996 to 2006. The detail presentation of Fair work depicts a written summary about the new laws and also research and analysis about the changes.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND BOOT

There has been different concept about industrial relations and the boot specially in case of young and jobless people. They are considered to be more in loss in respect to minimum wages and entitlement of different awards. ( Lynn Van der Wagen, Anne Goonetilleke,2015)

Change in Retail and Hospitality Industry-

There has been a new wave in the retail and hospitality industry. Prior to a year the there was system of cutting down rates through bargaining in the sector. This was to combine the risk of penalty rates and also to grab the attention and mark the presence of Better off overall test.

This combination resulted in rapid changes in the retail industry. It had outcomes such as award compliance, Competitive and difficult times. The consequences were spread all over the community.

If we discuss the nature of safety net in case of retail and hospitality industry we can come across the conclusion that it is complexly linked to bargaining in organisation. Take for instance all the giant and big companies, the enterprise by cutting down its rates has resulted in changes all the awards procedure. The changes can be with subject such as  penalty rates. Business administrators have make benefits by usage of such approach in the history of 25 years.

RESULTS AND OUTCOMES OF APPROACH

There have been usage of these approaches from over the 25 years, later it became no longer useful from past one year. It was because the union of  has landed the names , further enterprise award were flowed with penalty rates against many retailers. Most of the giant enterprises had eliminated the traditional advantages because of implementation of BOOT. Now, the test is being applied more seriously than before.

It was thought that the retail industry would be stuck in debate and discussion but the evaluation led us to the conclusion that any decrement in the previous position could be a disadvantage and also a consequence in terms of social means.

The simple factors of being high stakes cannot be ignored at first. The G20 leaders have also highlighted the fact that the unemployment and underemployment can be coped up. These are one of the key challenges which have been hurdles to the development of nations in particular. These might be the top priority in terms of G20 nations.

CONCLUSION

Australia have been in growing terms from 9.4 percent to 13.3 percent and the figures of Australia have been remarkable when it comes to utilisation of laws and acts of Fair work Association specially BOOT. Although there have been underutilisation in many level rate such as that of 30 percent in example.

If we consider Australia it has a considered one of the highest level for the minimum wage system in context with the international standard across the globe. This resulted in higher classification rates and also high penalties and minimum pay floor. Despite of this the poverty have been a challenging at times.

All in all the report can give us some recommended changes in relation to elimination, substitution, isolation and engineering control of the BOOT Fair work act. Also it had included the Administrative content and the Personal protective equipment in respect to the point test.

It is no doubt that BOOT is a great test to work on but its implementation is a little complex. The test has made things easier from before such as NDT but it still has loopholes. Many a times the approval of the agreement fails. Also,  it is difficult to pass the test. The criteria might provide discrimination in the employees in order of their classes. These areas must be carefully looked upon for modification

REFERENCES

  • Mondaqcom. (2017). Mondaqcom. Retrieved 10 May, 2017, from The NoDisadvantage Test The BOOT
  • Keybacomau. (2016). Key Business Advisors. Retrieved 10 May, 2017, from 
  • Fwcgovau. (2017). FWC Main Site. Retrieved 10 May, 2017, from 
  • Hradvancecomau. (2017). Hradvancecomau. Retrieved 10 May, 2017, from 
  • Abcnetau. (2017). ABC News. Retrieved 10 May, 2017, from 
  • Employmentlawmatterscom. (2016). Employment Law Matters. Retrieved 10 May, 2017, from
  • Inspire-successcom. (2017). Inspire-successcom. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from 
  • Legalvisioncomau. (2017). LegalVision. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from 
  • Thepeopleindairyorgau. (2017). Thepeopleindairyorgau. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from 
  • Googlecoin. (2017). Googlecoin. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from 
  • Workforceguardiancomau. (2017). Workforceguardiancomau. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from 
  • Legalvisioncomau. (2017). LegalVision. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from 
  • Claytonutzcom. (2017). Claytonutzcom. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from 
  • Lawhandbookorgau. (2017). The Law Handbook. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from 
  • Cgwcomau. (2017). Cgwcomau. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from 
  • Rkcomau. (2017). Rkcomau. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from
  • Fairworkgovau. (2017). Fair Work Ombudsman. Retrieved 11 May, 2017, from 

 

 

 

 

 

???????