Not-for-Profits and the Integration of Employment Law Policies

Question: Describe about the not-for-Profits and the integration of Employment Law Policies and Practices. Answer: Introduction The not-for-profit organizations, from now on referred to as the NFPs, are regarded as the primary investors in the social welfare of Australia. It has been founded by the Productivity Commission that the NFPs apart from rendering the those required services, they also help in the promotion of the change in the issues of social, cultural and the economic environment. in addition to that the other services of the NFPs include assisting the expansion of the social network between the persons in a community and making the investment in the assets for the benefit of the generations of the future. The NFPs in addition to the contributions to the society, also contribute or comprise towards a larger portion of the economy of Australia. In the year of 2010, it has been seen that the NFPs made a contribution of $43 billion in the economy of Australia, which in approximate terms figured as 4% of the GDP of Australia. The NFPs made the employment of 4.6 billion persons. There is an additional number of five million volunteers that made the contribution of an amount of $14.6 billion that is unpaid[1]. The NFPs are also subject to a regulatory structure that is evident in a structure of business for profit. There is also the requirement of the integration of the practices and policies of the law of employment about the NFPs. It has been seen that the majority of the NFPs are unincorporated and not large associations, but the law relating to them are often seen as unclear and complex. There are also certain specific challenges that are related to the interpretation of the law of the NFPs and the practices of complex ways of fundraising and the requirement of a centrally governed law[2]. This report will make the outline of certain difficulties that are faced by the NFPs in making the interpretation of law. Such law includes the law of the policies of employment. This report also puts forward an argument for making the reform of making the law much more easily accessible to nearly 60,000 evident NFPs that are in operation in the border areas of Australia. Practices and the Policies of the Employment Law The law of employment is regarded as a complex procedure and includes certain jurisdictions that are overlapping and also involves several bodies of regulation. It also includes common law and statute practices of law. For instance, the maximum numbers of the NFPs operating in the territory of Australia are regulated by the Fair Work Act of the year of 2009. The associations that are unincorporated are regulated by the Industrial Relations Act of Act and the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act of 1993 about standard the of employment. The federal awards also govern the NFPs[3]. The next challenge for the NFPs is making the understanding of the laws that governs them are capable of making the determination whether the workers have the qualification as volunteers, contractors or employees. Since this issue is faced by almost all the businesses, the conditions of employment of the workers of the third sector might blur those lines in between the categories. For the purpose of making the appropriate determination, the NFPs perform certain tests that emerged in the case of Zuijs v Wirth Bros Pty Ltd (1995) 93 CLR 561. In case then workers of the NFPs are considered as the employees, then shall be treated by the standards of National Employment that are declared in the Fair Work Act of 2009. The contractors are subject to protection under the Independent Contractor Act of 2006. On the other hand, the volunteers are not subject to be covered by the standards of National Employment but are subject to general protection by the Fair Act of 2009[4]. The statutes that are mentioned above are not the ones that the NFPs are sole subject to. The definition of employee given in the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, states a broader definition of the term. In accordance with that Act, the term employee can be termed as any person who is given the payment for the number of hours work rather than the performance of work, under the contractual terms. Hence there is a requirement for the payment of superannuation or else they would be considered as the independent contractors. The meaning of the term worker got expansion in the Model Health and Safety (WHS) Act that regarded the inclusion of contractors and volunteers as workers[5]. Requirement for Reform There is a requirement of the reform in the regulation procedure of the NFPs. Myles McGregor, the winner order regarded that there has been the generation of 50,000 pages from the legislation and enquires of the government about the reform of the regulation of the NFPs in the past two decades. The report on the Productivity Commission's Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector made the stipulation of the fact that the regulatory framework of this sector lacks transparency and coherence and is also complex[6]. In spite of the above report, the progress of the reform of the regulatory measures of the NFPs is very limited. The reforms got enacted in the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012, that made the establishment of the recent framework of regulation. There was the establishment of the definition of charity through the Charities Act 2013 and the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC). There has been a criticism relating the fact that the there has not been the collaboration between the regulatory authorities of the NFPs. But, it has been seen that the ACNC has put its step forward in the right direction[7]. Conclusion From the above discussion, it is evident that there is the requirement of the proper regulation of the NFPs not for the public protection but also for the workers of the NFPs. It is evident that the increases in the costs and the limited support of the Government have lead to the strain and pressure of the NFPs. Hence, there is a large requirement of having clarity in the regulatory process of the NFPs[8]. Reference List Benn, Suzanne, Dexter Dunphy, and Andrew Griffiths.Organizational change for corporate sustainability. Routledge, 2014. Conroy, James W., Steven J. Dale, and Robert P. McCaffrey. "Current and Emerging Trends for Residential Supports for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the Impact of Managed Care Initiatives." InHealth Care for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities across the Lifespan, pp. 255-263. Springer International Publishing, 2016. Goodwin, Susan, and Ruth Phillips. "The marketisation of human services and the expansion of the not-for-profit sector." (2015). Meese, Alan J., and Nathan B. Oman. "Hobby Lobby, Corporate Law, and the Theory of the Firm: Why For-Profit Corporations Are RFRA Persons." InHarvard Law Review Forum, vol. 127, p. 273. 2014. Murphy, Maria L. "Preventing and Detecting Fraud at Not-for-Profits: Environment, Policies, and Controls Can Help Organizations Steer Clear of Problems."Journal of Accountancy220, no. 6 (2015): 77. Townsend, Keith, Paula McDonald, and Abby Cathcart. "Managing flexible work arrangements in small not-for-profit firms: the influence of organisational size, financial constraints and workforce characteristics."The International Journal of Human Resource Management(2016): 1-23. Weimer, David L., and Aidan Vining.Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Routledge, 2015. Wenzel, Ramon. "Work learning in the Australian not-for-profit sector: A review, reconceptualization, and research agenda." InAustralian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference, p. 19. 2014.