A new survey by Ernst & Young is making news for finding that lost productivity costs Australian businesses a total of $41 billion per year, but there’s another part of the survey that’s worth paying much more attention to from an employer perspective.

The Australian Productivity Pulse, which profiled about 2500 workers across all industries, categorised respondents in four different groups of productivity.

At the top, it classified 23 per cent of people as being in the ‘highly productive’ category, rating 9 or 10 out of 10 on a productivity scale (the national average is 7.16).

A profile of the highly productive group revealed some common or more frequent characteristics. Some of these make good watercooler gossip (such as the fact that they are more likely to be female than male), but there are some other findings that could be applied across nearly all companies.

For a start, productive employees are likelier to be healthier people with healthier lifestyles. They on average take a week or less of sick leave each year (a third take no sick days at all), but take longer breaks and holidays, and devote more time to recreation and leisure. Time spent at the workplace has next to no impact on productivity at all.

A productive employee is likely to be part of an effective team and work in a supportive team culture, confirming the importance of effective teams to productivity. He or she will also have clear expectation and goals and feel certainty about their work. Uncertainty and insecurity were found to be big drainers of productivity.

Additionally, productive employees were likelier to be working for a small business or have responsibility for a large amount of people (more than 500), had access to learning opportunities, could develop their skills and feel their work is valued.

Money and salary was found to have little to do with ensuring productivity, especially considering the highest levels of motivation were found in workers aged 65 and above.

“Older workers….have the highest productivity and motivation levels, yet they are on the lower end of the salary scale. This suggests that life stage and experience are key drivers of productivity and motivation,” the report says.

These results may not necessarily be revelatory, but they’re a handy reminder for employers about the drivers of productivity, and how they can achieve the best possible results from their most valuable resource – their people.

VECCI’s one day Building High Performance Teams program provides proven strategies for getting the most of your team, while the Introduction to Lean Thinking and Value Stream Mapping courses can identify productivity improvements – click the links for more info.

What do you think of the results of the report – do you agree with the defined characteristics of a productive employee, and the main causes of wasted time at the workplace?

A new scheme has been launched that is asking some employers to run checks against young job applicants for any history of school bullying – is the scheme a legitimate deterrent to poor behaviour at school, or does it deny people a chance to reform their behaviour in the workforce?

ClubsNSW, the representative body of about 1400 registered clubs in New South Wales, is rolling out the ‘BULLYcheck’ program in the Murray region. As part of the program, any person aged 22 or under who applies for a job at a club will have to agree to a verbal referee check from their high school.

If a record of bullying, threatening or cyber-stalking is found, the person’s application will be rejected.

The program is being rolled out as a 12 month trial but ClubsNSW expects it will be implemented across the state soon after that.

“This program forces students to think about the effect their bullying will have on their own career, which for many is the most powerful motivator of all,” said Clubs NSW CEO Anthony Ball, who added that people who voluntarily raise their bullying history, and demonstrate remorse, could still be considered for jobs.

“Clubs will be going into schools with the message that the consequences of bullying will not be erased when they leave high school.”

The scheme has backing of the NSW Government’s Minister for Gaming and Racing, but Victorian Education Minister Martin Dixon told the Herald Sun today he had concerns that about schemes that could impinge on young people’s privacy.

There are also concerns that such a scheme could discourage young people a chance to reform their behaviour in a professional work environment.

We believe that in sending this clear signal that bullying is unacceptable and that there is no place for bullies in sports-based careers, the intent of the ClubsNSW initiative is welcome.

Bullying should not be condoned in any workplace. Most employers have clear practices in place to deal with workplace bullies and are aware of their obligations to provide a safe workplace for all employees.

However, any anti-bullying initiative must recognise that individuals who may have been reported as bullies during their high school years, but have since reformed their behaviour, also deserve a second chance.

What’s your opinion on the BULLYcheck program? Would you consider implementing something like this at your business if it were possible?

Victoria’s Transport Accident Commission have been promoting the 15 minute ‘powernap’ for years now as a method of combatting driver fatigue – and some workplace experts are proponents of the mid-afternoon nap, believing it can revitalise employees and lift productivity.

The powernap, according to an April article in Bloomberg Businessweek magazine, is taking off in the American finance industry, where many employees are pushed to their limits. A popular online forum reveals many methods that finance workers employ to grab some sleep wherever possible.

While many employers are unaware of their employees’ unscheduled napping, a few researchers recommend a regular nap as a technique to stave off fatigue. Dr David Dinges from the University of Pennsylvania calls it “multitask relaxing”, arguing that a short sleep enhances the brain’s functionality.

An experiment, part of a Harvard study about 10 years ago, found people who slept for a short period during the day actually improved their performance in the afternoon after napping, whereas the performance of those who remained awake deteriorated.

Considering the number of people who suffer from sleep shortage, and the potential health risks that are incurred, some employers are encouraging their workers to have short breaks to recharge and revitalise.

Initiatives include creating ‘quiet rooms’ or ‘sleeping pods’ in their buildings that workers can access when they need – one business has even created the ‘EnergyPod’, effectively a napping chair with ergonomic support, which it rents out to businesses.

For those worried that people might take workplace napping to the extreme, experts say a nap of no longer than 30 minutes is about the optimum length, ideally to be taken during the early afternoon.

Australian health educator Thea O’Connor told Radio National earlier this year that tiredness and fatigue ranks highly as a health concern among Australian workers, and napping is simple, free and “tailor-made” solution to a major health issue.

KPMG and Queensland Health have been named as Australian employers who facilitated napping but O’Connor said there’s still a huge cultural shift to take place in order to accept napping.

There are, of course, some significant barriers to power napping – work in some industries simply doesn’t allow a spare half an hour for a break, due to a lack of facilities, surrounding noise or customer demands. A stigma that napping equates to laziness is also a barrier. But a little bit of research and investigation into the benefits of napping may soon remove that last barrier for good.

If feasible, would you consider allowing employees to take short naps in your workplace? What’s your attitude to power napping?

An industrial spray painter sacked after his employer ruled he breached their ‘no smoking’ policy has won an unfair dismissal appeal, after a tribunal ruled the investigation which culminated in his dismissal had not, on the balance of probabilities, proven the breach occurred.

The painter was seen holding a cigarette in his spray paint booth by another employee, who was investigating a cigarette-like smell. The employer had a strict ‘no smoking’ policy on its worksite, due to the presence of chemicals.

The employee reported what he saw to management the next day, and an investigation was conducted. The painter argued he had puffed on an electronic cigarette, which he was using in an effort to quit smoking and had been using for months, in the knowledge of his direct supervisor and others.

The investigation eventually culminated in the painter’s summary dismissal for serious misconduct, but Fair Work Australia overturned the sacking, ruling that the misconduct he was accused of wasn’t proven on the balance of probabilities, as per the onus on employers in these instances.

Commissioner Ian Macdonald found that the employer had not found enough evidence to suggest the painter was smoking an actual cigarette, and failed to investigate whether the electronic cigarette used was capable of emitting an odour, which the painter raised as a defence in a meeting immediately after the allegation was reported.

“That was regrettable in the sense that had the [employer] asked for a demonstration (for odour purposes) from the [painter], then [the employee’s] claim that he smelt cigarette smoke could have been tested there and then,” Commissioner Macdonald wrote.

Given the seriousness of the allegations, Commissioner Macdonald also queried why it took a day to report the incident, and noted the painter’s direct supervisor was aware of his use of the electronic cigarette on the worksite and had not told the painter to stop using it.

“The evidence, in any event, against lighting up a real cigarette in a spray paint booth, is strong,” Commissioner Macdonald found.

“The evidence goes to the [painter’s] knowledge as to the consequences for lighting up in a spray paint booth as opposed to lighting up outside. Thus, he said of the spray paint booth: ‘…I’m working in an explosive environment. The last thing I want to do is blow myself up, right?’”

The Commissioner ordered the painter be reinstated to his position.

This case highlights the need to investigate matters thoroughly and fully, particularly where there are conflicting statements as to what has occurred. Where an employer seeks to rely on certain facts, they must be substantiated ‘on the balance of probabilities’.  In practical terms, this means thoroughly testing the evidence on which the employer may rely on, prior coming to a decision regarding substantiation.

For information on VECCI’s workplace relations advice services, visit www.vecci.org.au.

A small business’s dismissal of a member of its sales team has been upheld by a Fair Work Australia Commissioner, because he had lost the trust of his manager and colleagues by contacting the customers of other employees without their knowledge.

The employee, one of eight members of the sales team for the office supplies company, accessed the customer database to email a number of customers and offer his personal services, and failed to log his emails in the database, as per the usual process.

Each employee was paid a wage plus commissions based on the value of their achieved sales, heightening the incentive for the employee to make additional sales.

Another sales employee found about the unknown emails and alerted the director, who then summarily dismissed the employee and handed him a $2000 cheque. Other employees had alleged that he had used his telephone handset to monopolise incoming calls, with one commenting that he would’ve been concerned for the future working environment if the employee was to continue in his role.

In evidence to Fair Work Australia, the employee argued his emails were follow-ups from previous transactions in a bid to generate further sales for the business, and that he wasn’t given an opportunity to rectify his behaviour, contrary to the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.

Commissioner Barbara Deegan said in her finding that the employer did not have reasonable grounds to instantly dismiss the employee, but the breakdown in trust between the employee and his colleagues and manager meant there was a valid reason for termination.

Commissioner Deegan also noted the size of the business, with just eight paid employees, and the importance of a harmonious environment to the company’s success, in upholding the dismissal.

“Clearly it is [the director’s] preferred method of operation to seek harmony in the workplace and to avoid confrontation. He would have preferred that the [employee] had chosen to ‘walk away’ when confronted with the matter of the emails and to avoid the necessity for terminating his employment,” the Commissioner found.

“With advice [the director] may have elected not to pursue a summary dismissal. Clearly, however, [the director] was of the opinion that it was not in the best interests of harmony in his very small workplace for the [employee] to return to work.

“In those circumstances it would have been difficult for [the director] to comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code as, except in matters of summary dismissal, the Code appears to require an employer to allow an employee ‘a second chance’.

“The employer’s decision to terminate….employment was motivated purely by [the director’s] desire to ensure a harmonious workplace for his other staff and not by any vindictive or punitive factors.

“While there were some deficiencies in the procedures adopted in effecting the dismissal, I do not consider that these deficiencies, in all the circumstances of this matter, were sufficient to render the dismissal unfair,” Commissioner Deegan concluded.

A survey of young American college graduates has produced some revealing insights about what their expectations of their own career paths and their future employers, and the results bear noticing for Australian business owners.

In summary, the next generation of workers as a whole appear to have higher expectations, compete more with their peers, have less staying power and are more prepared to leave a job that’s personally unfulfilling.

The survey, by recruiting group Adecco, found only three per cent of respondents believed they would stay in a job for longer than five years. The connotations from this finding shouldn’t be all negative though, as a vast majority of respondents indicated their willingness to move to a new area, indicating a trend towards increased flexibility among young workers. About 90 per cent said they wouldn’t be willing to stick around in a job they didn’t enjoy and would likely leave within 12 months.

Regarding expectations of an ideal role, a majority of respondents confirmed they would expect to receive health benefits, opportunities for career development, a positive work/life balance and a good company culture among other factors – all rating above perks like extra holidays, office location and other business-related ‘perks’.

A recent Australian survey of ‘Gen Y’ employees confirmed the lofty expectations of most young workers, especially when it came to lifestyle and making enough money to being able to own their own home at some stage.

Catering for personal time

Graduates indicated they rated the ability to maintain their personal networks highly – nearly one in every four wouldn’t take a job where they couldn’t make or receive personal phone calls, and one in five would refuse a job that disallowed access to personal email.

It feeds into the theory that for most young workers have lessened the difference between personal and business lives, which led to SAP Australia instituting a ‘bring your own device’ policy to enable young workers to use their own laptop or tablet for work and personal purposes.

The survey also indicated greater pressure when it came to ‘keeping up’ with peers – 70 per cent felt career pressures in this aspect, while two-fifths said they were pressured when they saw peers making more money or get to a higher position, and one-fifth said career-related social media postings contributed to career pressures.

“With social media, this generation can see everything their peers are doing,” said Adecco’s Janette Marx. “So they feel like they have to move more often to keep up with where their friends and classmates are.”

Without stereotyping or pigeonholing younger employees, especially tertiary educated ones, the snapshot does provide some valuable tips and insights into the minds of the newest generation of full-time employees.

The Federal Court has dismissed a union appeal against a variation of the modern retail award that will allow school students to work shifts of less than three hours, opening up part-time employment opportunities, especially after school hours.

The appeal was dismissed by Justice Richard Tracey, confirming the earlier decision of Fair Work Australia which deemed that the ation to the General Retail Industry Award 2010 was necessary. This was on the grounds that the minimum three hour shift requirement in the award was a barrier to employment, particularly in areas where retailers close less than three hours after the school day ends.

Justice Tracey rejected arguments from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) that the variation of the award was discriminatory, because other potential employees would be overlooked because they had to be engaged for at least three hours.

Many modern awards, Justice Tracey found, contained elements of indirect discrimination.

“Awards typically contain many provisions that discriminate between employees. Wage rates, for example, are usually fixed by reference to criteria such as length of service and qualifications held.”

VECCI is pleased with the Federal Court’s decision to uphold Fair Work Australia’s variation of the modern award, as it broadens the number of potential individuals who can undertake retail work.

It also opens up employment opportunities for students seeking after-school work, and assist with their eventual transition to the full-time workforce.

VECCI is seeking that similar flexibility provisions are clarified and amended for employees under other awards. We’ll keep you up to date with our progress here on the VECCI Blog.