Working with Australia’s leading organisations means we are supporting them on a range of strategic business initiatives, to drive safety outcomes in the workplace of the future. These organisations are extending themselves beyond the regulatory assessment of ‘reasonable practicability’ and embracing innovation. Here is a snapshot of some of the pioneering work.

Collaboration is creating relevance

Addressing issues including mental wellbeing and workplace responses to domestic violence and sexual misconduct require multidisciplinary approaches. The risk management skill set which health and safety professionals possess has an important part to play in a holistic approach that should be used in collaboration with human and resource management professionals. The most creative organisations understand that cross-disciplinary teams are best placed to respond to new workplace challenges and facilitate pooling of ideas from safety, human resources, industrial, wellbeing and other professionals – working in true collaboration.

The recent discussion paper on Mentally Healthy Workplaces in New South Wales recognised the importance of identifying organisational psychosocial risks together with individual psychosocial risks such as bereavement, or new parent fatigue which may render workers more vulnerable to psychosocial risks at work. A traditional risk management approach does not provide a complete answer and organisations are responding by allowing safety professionals to upskill to identify  meaningful strategies that will improve health and wellbeing.

Networks and contacts

Safety professionals cannot possibly hope to be subject matter experts on every topic as their work, and the tools available to them, expand. Take for example, big data. We all know that if we can harness and mine the wealth of data we capture, we are more likely to be pro-active and could, for example, better predict issues like plant break down or fatigue onset. This opportunity sees safety professionals reaching for their metaphorical rolodex to build an understanding of, or the ability to source, specialist skills in data analytics and coding.

Pioneering safety professions are building and maintaining wide networks of specialists from a variety of fields and encouraging their teams to do the same. Being less insular makes the profession more relevant and responsive.

Some of the most pioneering safety initiatives we have seen in recent times draw on the skills of illustrators, computer animators, actors and advertising creatives (to name a few). As our appetite for digesting written information decreases, the most innovative organisations will foster collaboration between safety professionals and others to ‘keep it real’.

Viva la refinement

Avoiding the temptation to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ when responding to challenges. Asking if existing frameworks, with refinement, will address new challenges. The supply chain risk of modern day slavery is a good example. Where the pre-qualification processes, system of inspections, audits and verification that are familiar tools to the safety professional are ones which, with refinement, can be deployed to address aspects of working conditions at the ends of supply chains so they are not exploitative.

Nimbleness and harnessing technological platforms

We have previously written on the employment law challenges which arise from highly flexible workforces. For safety professionals a similar set of challenges arise because there are likely fewer traditional ‘touch points’ with workers and less ‘face time’ when compared to more traditional models of work.

Increasingly, flexible approaches are being used to induct workers, maintain training, provide an appropriate level of supervision and create and maintain the safety culture businesses desire in highly flexible workforces. Nimble organisations are supporting safety professionals to build multi-disciplinary teams to change their modes of delivery and to embrace the same technological platforms which allow for the flexibility in employment to communicate safety messages.


Our ‘future of work’ series has been considering how businesses will need to grow and adapt to changes to the way in which work will be performed in the future. Many of these developments flow from significant advances in technology that we have seen over the last 20 years – for example, increased automation, increased use of robotics and increased computing power have made many traditional roles redundant, while increased communications potential has meant that many workers can perform their roles flexibly. We understand these developments as the law firm known for our role in transformational legal industry and labour and employment issues, we believe it is our responsibility to harness our knowledge, experience and relationships to forge a path for the Future Employer.

Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

Employers will need to be prepared for close scrutiny of enterprise agreements that use a “small group” or “seed group” approach, following a number of recent developments in enterprise bargaining. The recent Federal Court decision in CFMEU v One Key sounds a cautionary note for the “seed group” strategy that some employers have been using in recent years.

In recent blogs, we have been looking at recent trends in enterprise bargaining including issues about how the group of employees covered by an agreement is selected. The trends include:

  • unions seeking to undermine enterprise agreements made without union involvement
  • the Federal Opposition’s proposal to prohibit enterprise agreements where the voting population is not “representative” of the agreement’s potential coverage.

The One Key case highlights the intersection of these developments and provides an example of how some enterprise agreements can be “undone” even years down the track.

What is the “seed group” strategy?

At a high level, the strategy involves an employer engaging with a small group of employees to make an enterprise agreement that will potentially cover a much larger group of workers in the future. The goal is this: establish an enterprise agreement on suitable terms which creates stability for up to four years, and can be rolled out to a larger workforce as recruitment “ramps up”.

How has the strategy been attacked by unions?

The strategy has seen some success, but has been the subject of attack from unions. Indeed, the CFMEU has said that it will “relentlessly” target deals to which it objects, and has attacked agreements made with “seed groups”.

Previously, one avenue of attack was to argue that such an agreement failed to meet the requirement that the group of employees covered be “fairly chosen”. That avenue was effectively closed in a case concerning John Holland, where the Federal Court said that there was nothing inherently wrong with a small group of employees voting on an agreement which might subsequently cover many more employees. The Court also said that the “fairly chosen” requirement does not mean that the group of employees had to be chosen in a “manner which would not undermine collective bargaining”.

A different line of attack was used in One Key, where it was argued that the relevant enterprise agreement had not been “genuinely agreed to” by the relevant employees. The Federal Court accepted that argument and determined that the enterprise agreement must be set aside (even though it had been in force for 2 years) because:

  • the agreement had been voted on by three employees with very “confined” employment experience; and
  • the three employees represented only a small sub-set of the group of employees who would be covered by the agreement – the three voting employees were covered by mining and construction awards, whereas the coverage of the agreement extended to future employees who would be covered by 11 different awards including those in the hospitality, road transport and manufacturing industries.

What does this mean for bargaining with seed groups?

Importantly, the Federal Court has not said that an enterprise agreement can never be made with a small group of employees that ultimately might cover a much larger cohort. However, the One Key decision does suggest that an employer may encounter difficulty if the employees who vote are not broadly representative of the range of different employees to whom the agreement will apply in the future.

In this way, the One Key decision emphasises that, unlike Jack trading the family cow for beans, there is no “magic seed” which will give employers quick and easy access to untold riches. While seed group agreements are legitimate, employers will still need to carefully consider the scope of an agreement and understand that a close examination will be made of whether the group of employees who vote is “representative” of the potential coverage of the agreement. This will be particularly important for agreements that cover multiple occupations and industries.

At a broader level, the debate remains whether enterprise bargaining is actually delivering a system of regulation of terms and conditions which are meeting the needs of employers and employees. That employers are seeking to adopt these strategies, and that debate has to be had about whether such a strategy is “legitimate” or not, does tend to suggest that the entire system needs to be revisited, rather than tinkered with.


Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

The impact of technology on the workplace is undeniable, and its effect on how employees will communicate in the workplace of the future cannot be overstated.

Impacts are emerging in workplaces, globally. We thought we would share the thought leadership of our colleague, Karla Grossenbacher, a partner in our Washington, D.C. team. It seems to us that her insights on these issues are equally applicable to Australian workplaces and we hope you find them of value.


As Generation Y begins to enter the workforce, many believe their preference for using texts instead of email to communicate will cause a fundamental shift in the workplace of the future, in which texting will replace email as the primary method of electronic communication. Employers need to prepare now for how they will be able to access and monitor workplace texts in the same way they do email, and preserve those texts as necessary to fulfill any legal obligations they have to preserve workplace communications.

Texting is becoming more common in the workplace. Most employees use company-owned or personal phones to communicate in the workplace to some degree, and with phones comes texting. Even if email is the sanctioned form of communication in the workplace, employees will text. Some employers may not even be aware their employees are texting with each other or to what extent. Other employers may be aware and actually permit texting in the workplace or simply tolerate it because they feel they cannot prevent it from happening.

Yet, if employers allow employees to text in the workplace, they will need to think about how they will access, view and preserve employee texts in the same manner that they do with emails. Lawyers in employment cases are beginning to demand that text messages be produced along with emails during discovery. If the texts are made from company phones, the basis for such a request would seem to be well-founded assuming the substance of the texts is relevant to the claims and defences in the case.

However, when the texts are sent or received on personal devices used by employees in the workplace, the issue becomes more complicated. In such cases, employers typically argue that they are not required to produce texts from their employees’ personal devices because such devices are not within the employer’s custody or control. But if employees are using personal devices at work pursuant to a Bring Your Own Device program, the argument that such devices are not under the employer’s custody or control is undercut. Often BYOD policies allow for the employers to take custody of the employee’s personal device for various legitimate business purposes, which would include responding to discovery requests in litigation.  Continue Reading Are your employees texting? Risks to employers taking workplace communications offline

The community was rightly outraged by the tragic loss of life in incidents at Dreamworld and Eagle Farm. The recent legislative response to those tragedies has attracted significant media attention, with laws recently rushed through Queensland parliament, introducing new offences into the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), the Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld) and the Recreational Water Activities Act 2011 (Qld), from 23 October 2017.

Much of the focus in the legal media and beyond has been on the headline grabbing figures of penalties of up to AUD$10m for body corporates and 20 years imprisonment for individuals – making these the toughest workplace penalties in Australia at the moment. The new offences respond to the sense of outrage, but with the attention on the penalties, there has been little pause to ask:

Are these laws an appropriate response to the tragedies?

To coin the phrase often used by lawyers, “the jury is still out”.

Looking at the introduction of the industrial manslaughter offences in the Work Health and Safety Act, we make the following observations:

  • The Act has the primary objective of protecting workers and other persons against harm to their health and safety.
  • The Act already provided for terms of imprisonment for the most serious types of offending.
  • It is not clear how the recent introduction of longer terms of imprisonment and higher penalties will help regulators prevent injury, illness and death as correctly highlighted by the Bar Association of Queensland, there has only been one prosecution of a category 1 offence (the most serious offence under the WHS Act) in Queensland so far.
  • There is no real evidence that the existing laws were ”inadequate”. We are not suggesting that a tragic loss of life in a workplace should not result in a detailed examination of the circumstances and, where there is evidence of serious offending by a duty holder, regulators ought to take enforcement action. The query is whether regulators in Queensland were unable to adequately do so prior to 23 October 2017.

Will the new offences have unintended consequences?

One serious concern amongst businesses, their workers, key stakeholders and others ought to be whether the introduction of longer terms of imprisonment and higher penalties and threats of greater enforcement will encourage business and industries to learn from failure in an open and transparent way.

The prospect of very severe (and, in particular, personal) penalties, will be an impediment to sharing valuable safety learnings in industries, at least until the legal processes have run their course. This can take up to five years in some circumstances. Will valuable lessons be lost?

This can only be detrimental to health and safety outcomes – the very opposite of what the laws seek to achieve.

We all want healthy and safe workplaces and appropriate responses to serious offending, but this should not be at the expense of an environment that encourages learning and sharing. We hope that the approach taken to the enforcement of the new offences does not create a new form of outrage caused by business and individuals justifiably exercising significant caution about sharing safety learnings with others in a timely fashion.


We raised the question in our related blog, Victorian OHS enforcement: why change the game plan when your team is on top? If the ‘end game’ is improving health and safety outcomes, are better options available?

Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

According to the Shadow Minister for Workplace Relations, Brendan O’Connor, (collective) bargaining power has tilted too much in favour of employers. This would rankle many an employer who, amongst other things, would feel the intense irony of Labor asserting that its workplace law, The Fair Work Act (The Act) carries employer bias.

A key tenet of Shadow Minister O’Connor’s National Press Club speech is that employers are “gaming” the Act. He relies on the example of an employer that sought to outsource work and have the services performed by a third party. Hardly remarkable. So what might employers say about this? In what ways do unions “game” the Act? Here’s a short list. Some involve taking advantage of existing laws and are therefore legal. Some are not.

Unlawful picketing – the relatively slow, expensive and difficult legal process to remove an obstructive picket provides a union with massive leverage in bargaining or a dispute (such as was the case in the example cited by Shadow Minister O’Connor). The ends justifies the (illegal) means it seems.

Unlawful industrial action – often taken for short periods but with maximum impact knowing the employer is unlikely to seek meaningful redress because the cost, effort and ‘pay-back’ is not worth it.

“Subterranean” industrial action – mass sickies or “go-slows” which are often hard to prove as industrial action and again very potent.

Threats of industrial action – made in bargaining but often not followed through. Sure, it’s better to not have the industrial action, but the employer needs to assume it is happening and in turn that it won’t be able to meet supply needs. Try running an airline on this basis.

Minority interests rule – in a system aimed at ‘the collective’, it’s nonetheless very often the interests of a powerful minority in the workplace that dictate bargaining outcomes. True, the majority are often passive and hence you might say ‘in agreement’. But the reality is very different.

Agreements made without union involvement are undermined – agreements are technically made with employees. Many have union involvement. Some do not. As you can imagine, unions will often take every point and make every attempt to delay the making of a ‘non-union’ agreement whatever the consequences for the employees who have made the deal.

Taking industrial action without bargaining in good faith – because the law doesn’t require this.

Preventing legitimate change – using legal processes to stymie change, because the union and typically a minority don’t like it. Delay costs an employer money and/or progress and who knows what can be extracted from more time. Sometimes the change is for the better health and safety of employees and delay is potentially at their expense.

Bad employee behaviour is supported – not always, but all too often, where the behaviour is that of a loyal union delegate whose absence from the site means the loss of a vulnerable union foot soldier.

Am I generalising? Yes. Would there be plenty of employers and peers of mine who agree with the above assessment? Yes.


See our related blog Proposal to outlaw “unrepresentative” enterprise agreements – when will an enterprise agreement be undone? for additional commentary on the Shadow Minister’s speech.

Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

On Wednesday 18 October, the Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations Brendan O’Connor foreshadowed amending the bargaining regime in the Fair Work Act to outlaw so-called “sham agreements”.

The target of the changes seems to be enterprise agreements that are voted on by one group of employees, but have the potential also to cover a much broader group, or to cover a similar group who will be employed in a different geographic location. The Shadow Minister referred to these situations as employers “gaming the system”. 

However,  we note that the Fair Work Act already contains a number of safeguards to prevent “gaming the system”, including that agreements are genuinely made, that employees who vote to make the agreement are “fairly chosen”, and employees are not coerced to vote or not vote for an agreement.

While we do not have the benefit of any detail (such as a draft Bill) – there are some things to be said about the potential effects of the foreshadowed changes.

The concept put forward by Shadow Minister O’Connor in his speech would allow an agreement that has been made, to be challenged and potentially reversed on the basis that the employees who made the agreement are not “representative” of those who will be covered by it.

This raises a number of important questions including:

  • What factors are to be taken into account in determining representativeness?
  • Which characteristics of the employment will be given priority over others in determining representativeness?
  • Who could challenge an agreement that has been made? For example:
    • Could a competitor union to that which represents the employees use the provisions to unwind an agreement that has been made?
    • Could another company challenge the approval, with the goal of ensuring the employer is hindered in achieving competitive terms and conditions for its business?

These questions may not be answered unless and until the provisions are enacted and tested by the many varied situations real life throws up.

Our initial impression is that any amendments that allow agreements that have been made to be effectively “undone” could cause enormous problems that go well beyond the immediate issue being addressed. This exemplifies the danger of focussing on first order consequences, at the expense of equally (sometimes more) important second and third order consequences.  By trying to plug a perceived gap in the legislation, these amendments have the potential to open up a new form of “litigation sport” – where agreements that have been made are subject to lengthy legal challenges and then undone much later down the track. There are many industrial reasons – which have nothing to do with the supposed problem being addressed – which might provide motivation for such challenges. Continue Reading Proposal to outlaw “unrepresentative” enterprise agreements – when will an enterprise agreement be undone?

LinkedIn is the biggest online network of professionals in the world. Many employers encourage staff to use LinkedIn to promote their organisation.

While employees may share content relating to their organisation, they tend to think of their profile as personal to them, like a resume, which is available to recruiters, colleagues and clients.

Yes, the LinkedIn account belongs to the individual, but that doesn’t mean that ‘anything goes’.

On signing up, you agree with LinkedIn to provide truthful information and to not misrepresent your current or previous positions or qualifications. Even so, we have all noticed information on LinkedIn that isn’t 100% accurate.

You may have had a similar experience where you look up a contact on LinkedIn, and their profile shows them at a job they left months ago.

Perhaps they are on gardening leave, or they have been exited against their will and don’t want to say they are unemployed. There is the potential that their account was connected to a work email address that they can no longer access, and signing back in has become too problematic.

But in more concerning circumstances, some people use their LinkedIn profile to paper over gaps in a resume – this is an age-old issue, but with LinkedIn and online platforms, it is increasingly visible.

Other than getting frustrated, what can employers do when an employee fails to update their LinkedIn profile?

There are options to manage this risk as an employer:

  • Writing to the employee and asking them to correct the details
  • Using the LinkedIn feature to ‘disconnect’ that contact from your organisation, removing them from search results and the list of employees
  • Reminding departing employees of expectations in exit interviews
  • Including a term of a release agreement or deed which can be specifically enforced if necessary.
Is it worth the trouble from a commercial perspective? The answer may well depend on the individual involved. It is always a balancing act, but when rights and obligations are clearly defined, resources like LinkedIn are proven to work in everyone’s interest.

Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

Seyfarth Shaw has announced the addition of corporate partner Raymond Wong in Hong Kong as the firm continues to scale its International Corporate and Commercial practice in the Asia-Pacific region.

Seyfarth announced its launch in Hong Kong on February 27 through partner Julia Gorham, former head of DLA Piper’s Asia Employment Law practice and now part of Seyfarth’s market-leading International Employment practice.

“Working with many of the world’s leading companies, we are committed to addressing their growing cross-border transactional needs in the Asia-Pacific region,” said Pete Miller, Seyfarth’s chair and managing partner.

A highly respected corporate and commercial lawyer in the Asia Pacific, Wong joins Seyfarth from King & Wood Mallesons. His practice focuses on mergers & acquisitions, general corporate & commercial, corporate strategies, IPOs, regulatory compliance, and public takeovers in Hong Kong, China and the UK.

Wong has advised many Chinese and international clients on a variety of landmark global offerings and listings on the London, New York, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Tokyo Stock Exchanges, as well as cross-border transactions in the real estate and energy / natural resources sectors. Wong will be Seyfarth’s Hong Kong office managing partner.

“Raymond brings very strong transactional experience in several key financial centers around the world that are central to our International Corporate and Commercial practice,” said Darren Gardner, chair of Seyfarth’s International practice. “We are very excited to have him join Julia and the rest of our team in Hong Kong.”

Seyfarth Shaw was recently approved by The Law Society of Hong Kong as a registered foreign law firm in Hong Kong. In addition, The Law Society has approved Seyfarth Shaw’s association with Wong, Wan & Partners, the Hong Kong solicitors’ firm formed by Seyfarth Shaw LLP partners Raymond Wong and Wan Li.


Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

Trade union conduct is constantly changing, and our team have observed trends that are reshaping the boundaries, and that have already begun to impact our clients.

Policy Measures: increased scrutiny on trade union conduct

On the policy front, the conservative government has implemented three measures addressing unlawful behaviour by unions and their members based on the findings of former High Court Justice John Dyson Heydon AC QC in the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption in 2015.

Two key measures passed in late 2016.

The Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) has been reformed and is expected to repeat the effective reform of union practices achieved by the previous ABCC in the mid-to-late 2000’s. The ABCC regulates building and construction industry participants its functions include implementing a code of practice to regulate workplace practices and taking action to prosecute breaches of workplace laws. Sanctions can be imposed to exclude companies from tendering for government funded building work. The return of the ABCC has generally been welcomed by the construction industry.

A new regulator was introduced. The Registered Organisations Commission (ROC) was established to enhance governance and financial accountability of trade unions following multiple findings of misuse of union funds. The regime draws upon statutory duties placed upon company directors under Australia’s corporations law. Financial reporting and disclosure obligations have been strengthened, and penalties for non-compliance have increased, including criminal offences for serious breaches. New whistle-blower protections have also been introduced.

Further new laws have been proposed to prohibit making or receiving corrupting payments at the direction of unions, bringing greater accountability to unions and their office holders.

Novel application of anti-bullying protections

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in its anti-bullying jurisdiction provided a novel application of existing law to address unlawful behaviour by unions in industrial disputes. The decision recognises that abusive or offensive conduct directed at other workers won’t be excused in the heat of industrial battle.

The catalyst for the dispute was a change of contractor providing maintenance services at the site on terms opposed by the unions. The dispute was heated, and a picket at the site continued for almost six months. Drawing on the power to name and shame, the union-led campaign included extensive use of social media (some against individual workers), a boycott of the targeted company’s products and fundraising activities.

A key priority for the new contractor was to protect its workers from being bullied at the site and on social media. The FWC made orders against unions and officials to restrain conduct directed at workers entering or leaving the site during the dispute.

The FWC orders prevented:

  • photographing, filming, or digitally recording any of the workers (or attempting to do such things);
  • abusing or harassing workers, including calling out offensive or insulting names, including “scab” or “dog”;
  • accosting or obstructing workers;
  • holding up any signs or material at the picket which contain offensive or insulting language towards the workers; and
  • approaching a worker, any vehicle driven by a worker or a vehicle in which a worker is a passenger.

The FWC determined it appropriate to make orders protecting the identities of workers seeking orders. This should provide comfort to workers subjected to similar tactics in future.

This matter represents the first time the FWC has made anti-bullying orders against a union and picketers in relation to protest activity and represents a novel and effective use of the FWC’s anti-bullying jurisdiction by employers. Before this decision, the FWC’s anti-bullying jurisdiction, which commenced in 2014, has most often been used by individual employees against employers and managers.

Traditional employer responses to picketing have involved seeking injunctions to stop such activity, which can be time consuming and costly. The FWC’s anti-bullying jurisdiction supplements these options with a quick and cost-effective alternative to counter intimidation during union organised picketing.


Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

The gig economy is only one of the reasons that workers of the future will not have close connections with one employer or business – another is the movement towards arranging their life so that they spend substantial periods of time not working at all.

The trend towards regularly spending long periods of time away from the workforce is highlighted in an article by Christine Long in the Sydney Morning Herald considering people who only work a few months of the year, and the renowned demographer Bernard Salt’s column in The Australian that looks at changes that millennials will bring to the workforce. Both identify movement towards:

  •  workers wanting to spend significant time doing other things – beyond the traditional two year stint in London, many millennials (and even Gen-Xers) want to spend months every year travelling or pursuing personal interests. Workers no longer feel a need to hold down a steady job the whole year or to take only four weeks leave per year
  • to achieve that goal, workers seek flexibility by negotiating specific employment arrangements or engaging with businesses strictly on their own terms – eg establishing their own service business and working where and when (and for how long) they choose
  • for the above reasons, workers will interact with organisations on a sporadic basis – they will not have long-term or even regular engagements with one business.

The stability employees once sought through steady employment with large companies, to support nuclear families, will be relegated to the history books for an ever increasing number of Australians. And as more and more millennials enter the workforce, we will continue to see business practices needing to adapt to these changes.

As we‘ve mentioned, substantial legislative reform will be necessary to make sure that these developments are properly catered for – and balanced against social expectations about minimum wages and other entitlements.

But, how will your organisation cope in the meantime? From our work with clients, and our own experience starting from the ground up in Australia four years ago, we have identified a need to:

Consider business need before engagement. Mindful of the nature of your business, your legal risk profile and appetite for change, consider if your current business need can be properly supported with workers taking substantial periods away. Carefully examine whether it is best to engage such workers as independent contractors or employees and if you’re ready for the administrative overheads involved in a change to the way workers are engaged.

Think about how the arrangements will work in practice. You need to examine the legal implications of the treatment of time away from work. If you use employment arrangements, consider how unpaid leave can be handled, as there may be impacts on length of service (which may impact things like accrued leave and access to unfair dismissal). Think about ways you might be able to build connection and loyalty so that the worker is willing to be there for you at short notice.

Re-visit your contracts and workplace policies. You will need to ensure your contracts and policies clearly and comprehensively deal with the organisation’s expectations about long-term absence and when it is prepared to enter into flexible arrangements, preferably at the organisation’s discretion.

Business continuity. While no business is assured continuity, you must consider how you will manage operations on critical processes and projects when workers want to take substantial periods away, including how you will achieve satisfactory knowledge transfer. You will need to look at whether you can support business continuity by covering long periods of absence with another flexible worker – including, perhaps, using job share arrangements or short-term engagements.

On-boarding and off-boarding. Resources should be allocated to processes to on-board and off-board workers on these arrangements. For roles that have critical safety risks, you must ensure you fully understand your duties to protect yourself from legal risk.


Our ‘future of work’ series has been considering how businesses will need to grow and adapt to changes to the way in which work will be performed in the future. Many of these developments flow from significant advances in technology that we have seen over the last 20 years – for example, increased automation, increased use of robotics and increased computing power have made many traditional roles redundant, while Increased communications potential has meant that many workers can perform their roles flexibly. We understand these developments as the law firm known for our role in transformational legal industry and labour and employment issues, we believe it is our responsibility to harness our knowledge, experience and relationships to forge a path for the Future Employer.

Subscribe to receive the next blog in our Future of Work series direct to your inbox.