Authored by: Kirsten Hartmann, Principal IR Consultant
The concept of ‘lunchtime training sessions’ don't compare to formal structured training sessions, as this recent Fair Work case demonstrates.
The days of tick and flick training, conducting lunchtime sessions, or toolbox talks have become a thing of the past.
It became abundantly clear in the recent case of Ramlan Abdul Samad v Phosphate Resources Ltd T/A Christmas Island Phosphates [2024] FWC 2868 (16 October 2024).
The applicant in this case was making rude and explicit jokes to another employee which ultimately resulted in his employment being terminated for breach of company policies. The policies in question were the Code of Conduct, Standards of Behaviour policy, Anti-discrimination and harassment and Psychosocial safety in the workplace which had been trained in a “toolbox talk” to employees that went for thirty minutes.
The applicant claimed that he was not aware of the policies that he had supposedly breached. He was also unaware that his “banter was in breach of these policies or unlawful”.
In the Deputy President’s decision he highlighted that a 30-minute toolbox talk is “not conducive to explaining and promoting serious workplace behavioural requirements to employees……regrettably …all of the hallmarks of a “tick and flick” exercise to demonstrate compliance.” The Deputy President went on further to say that part of the reason he ruled the applicant’s dismissal as unfair was the “contributory factor” that he was not adequately trained in what was, and was not, acceptable.
This ruling absolutely places employer’s on notice that in order to protect your company (or ameliorate the risk) against potential causes of action (bullying, unfair dismissal, sexual harassment, adverse action, or being vicariously liable,) the ‘tick and flick training’ approach does not satisfy courts and tribunals.
Key takeaways from the case
A long time ago, the concept of ‘bite size, lunchtime training sessions’ and ‘toolbox talks’ became an attractive alternative to formal structured training sessions for employers, particularly in workforces with a heavy contingent of blue-collar workers.
The idea was that they provided palpable advantages such as time efficiency, the prevention of learning overwhelms, and not overly formalising training so people accepted and understood it.
There was even some case law at the time where the Commission would scald employers for bailing up new employees in long days of reading, training, and onboarding where it was almost impossible for everyone to remember and contextualise what they had learnt.
Hence, the toolbox talk – quick snappy learning – was introduced and embraced.
This type of learning is still considered useful and has its place, however, as this recent case demonstrates, tick and flick exercise on serious subjects is not appropriate.
Furthermore, serious content with serious outcomes, should not be squished into a 15-minute toolbox talk. To put it quite simply, the best defence to actions like the ones described above is regular and substantial workplace training for staff (and those are the actual words we are seeing).
Formal, structured training cements the notion that the employer takes it seriously, allows people to ask questions, and guides people through what is right, wrong and what is acceptable in the workplace. Quick training sessions just simply cannot fulfil that obligation, and the courts/commissions are in agreement.
Even the simple act of pausing business to undertake the training highlights its seriousness.
Training must be compulsory, registered, and reinforced as important as learning and knowing how to do your substantive role in the organisation.
iHR Australia delivers this for you, or even build tailored inhouse training to support your organisation’s needs. It goes beyond compliance, and is facilitated with an intention to help you build a happy positive safe culture for everyone to work in.
