Australia’s care industry, the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) has put forth a proposal to the Fair Work Commission requesting that sleepover shifts in the care industry be classified as breaks rather than working hours. If accepted, the move could establish a new work structure in which caregivers may find themselves working up to 28 consecutive hours without the benefit of overtime pay—a change unions have labeled as a “nightmare.”
This week, as the Fair Work Commission prepares to hear the Ai Group’s case, unions like the Australian Services Union (ASU) are pushing back vigorously. They argue that counting sleepovers as breaks not only unfairly disregards the nature of the work required during these hours but also threatens the safety and well-being of both workers and clients.
For many workers in the care industry, a sleepover is far from restful. This type of shift requires employees to remain on-site overnight to attend to clients’ needs, often involving irregular wake-ups and little to no sleep, especially when working with clients suffering from trauma or other high-needs situations. Caregivers like Bernie, a 58-year-old social worker in out-of-home care for children, describe the experience as draining and grueling.
“Every night you are getting up to the young people because there’s complex trauma, so they don’t have regular sleep patterns,” Bernie explained. “I did one on Friday night: I was up until 3 a.m. So then I’m back on shift at 7 a.m.” With 39 years of experience in the field, Bernie explains that such shifts are already challenging enough and the proposed changes would only make filling these sleepover shifts even harder.
“If this goes through, I don’t think I’d be able to do it anymore. It’s very difficult to find people willing to do sleepovers as it is, and to be away from family for 28 hours is just too much,” Bernie stated.
The Ai Group’s proposal is simple yet far-reaching. By counting the eight-hour sleepover as a break, they argue that shifts worked before and after a sleepover should be counted as separate from the sleepover itself. If approved, this redefinition could mean a worker might end up with a 10-hour shift followed by an eight-hour sleepover, immediately followed by another 10-hour shift—a structure that totals 28 consecutive hours without overtime pay.
Bernie’s case is not unique. Many workers, especially those in community and disability support roles, face similar grueling schedules. The Australian Services Union and other worker advocacy groups warn that the reclassification of sleepovers as rest periods ignores the reality of these shifts and could endanger both employees and clients.
According to Angus McFarland, ASU New South Wales and ACT Secretary, this move is a blatant attempt by employers to save on costs at the expense of employee welfare. “The business lobby is hellbent on making sleepover shifts a nightmare for community and disability support workers,” McFarland said. “It’s outrageous that employers are attempting to drag the pay and conditions of dedicated sleepover care workers backwards.”
Beyond the ethical considerations, unions argue that such extended shifts could lead to severe safety risks. Fatigued workers are more likely to make mistakes, which can be disastrous in high-stakes environments involving the care of vulnerable individuals. Bernie echoed this sentiment, describing fatigue as “a work health and safety lawsuit waiting to happen.”
“When you’re driving young people on no sleep, you could have an accident,” Bernie pointed out. “You’re not mentally fit enough to deal with challenging behaviors, and that’s a danger to everyone involved.”
In contrast, the Australian Industry Group insists that their proposal is reasonable and aims to clarify ambiguities in the current system, which they argue have been exploited by unions to maximize worker benefits. Ai Group Chief Executive Innes Willox claims the application merely addresses a “technical anomaly” in the award terms that some have interpreted to allow for “unexpectedly generous” compensation.
“Many employees wish to perform work in this manner, and the changes would offer a fair safety net,” said Willox. He further contended that the proposal could have a “positive impact on business,” potentially enhancing productivity and reducing employment costs.
The Ai Group also asserts that aligning shifts in this manner could improve the continuity of care for clients. “The arrangement would allow employees to provide care to clients before bed and when they wake the next morning,” the proposal argued, suggesting this setup would support a smoother experience for clients requiring ongoing care.
In response, unions have labeled this rationale as misleading, with McFarland accusing employers of using “corporate doublespeak” to justify a significant downgrade in pay and working conditions for workers who are already under strain. He highlighted that workers currently receive overtime for shifts exceeding 10 hours before or after sleepovers, and under the new proposal, workers would have to endure shifts exceeding a full day before overtime rates would apply.
“Effectively, employers want workers to be on shift for more than a whole day for less pay,” McFarland added, calling the proposal a “cash grab” that would disproportionately affect workers in essential services, like disability support and child care.
The outcome of this case will serve as a litmus test for Australia’s labor laws and may reflect broader trends in how modern workplaces are adapting to the evolving demands of a 24-hour care society. While the Fair Work Commission has yet to make a decision, stakeholders across the spectrum are watching closely. For employers, it represents an opportunity to streamline costs and clarify scheduling practices. For unions and workers, it’s about defending the integrity of rest and working conditions in a field that already asks so much from its employees.
As Australia’s care industry continues to navigate workforce shortages and increasing demand, decisions made by regulatory bodies like the Fair Work Commission will likely have far-reaching consequences. Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores the complex interplay between labor rights, business interests, and the demands of caring for the country’s most vulnerable populations.
The Fair Work Commission’s ruling on this case is expected in the coming months. In the meantime, unions are ramping up public awareness campaigns to highlight the plight of workers in the care industry and to garner support for their push against what they see as an unfair and exploitative change.
- Sleepover Shifts in Care Work: Ai Group’s proposal to count sleepovers as breaks could lead to 28-hour shifts without overtime pay, sparking union concerns.
- Potential Safety Risks: Unions warn that such shifts could endanger both workers and clients due to fatigue.
- Business Rationale: The Ai Group argues that the change would streamline costs and enhance continuity of care, claiming many workers would benefit from the shift structure.
- Future Implications: This decision could set a precedent impacting labor practices in other industries facing similar demands.
As Australia grapples with a growing need for around-the-clock care, the debate over sleepover shifts and worker protections underscores the challenges of balancing economic efficiency with human dignity and the importance of labor standards in safeguarding both workers and the people they serve.
