Submission from:
Submitted 2 nd March 2012
Type:
Address:
National Industry Association
Suite 16, 23-25 Gipps Street
Collingwood, VIC, 3066
Declaration of Interest:
As the peak representative body for the textile, clothing and fashion industries of Australia the TFIA represents the collective business interests of its members, which consist of companies engaged in design, manufacturing, distribution and retail activities in this sector of industry.

Executive Summary
The Council of Textile & Fashion Industries of Australia (TFIA) has serious concerns regarding unworkable aspects of the current TCF Regime i.e. the interaction between Fair
Work Act (FW Act), the TCFAI Modern Award MA000017 and the definitions of work arrangements and deeming provisions of ‘outworkers’ in Schedule F.
The TFIA believes the ‘outworker definitions’ are too broad, right of entry and liabilities are excessive and unnecessary. Having worked with the Fair Work legislation for 2 years there are aspects that are proving to be unworkable and having a major impact on clothing manufacturers and home based businesses that are already under considerable competitive pressure.
The TCF regime is unique in its prescriptive and bias towards one model of doing business i.e. it removes the incentive to operate a home based family business and locks the supply chain into a permanent full time or part time employer-employee relationship. This has a negative impact on the competitive advantages of the local clothing industry which must compete with an average imported FOB $4.06 per unit cost.
Because of the broad definitions of an ‘outworker’ and ‘TCF work’ those that are not vulnerable i.e. those with qualifications, knowledge and skills are also treated in the same way. For example a designer with a University degree wanting to set up a home based business would be treated the same as a person with poor English language skills and little knowledge of the Australian legal system.
The arguments for further tightening the legislation relating to the TCF sector are based on research conducted 5 years or more ago not current evidence and fail to acknowledge the gains made in the 10 years of existing legislation and the 4 years of $5mil investment by the
Federal Government in Ethical Clothing Australia.
The Australian TCF regime is one of the most rigid regimes that operate globally. The current legislative framework is the toughest the TCF sector has ever had to endure and certainly harsher than that imposed on any other sector in the Australian community.
Many of Australia’s most enduring brands e.g. Country Road, Billabong etc started as home based businesses. If the TCF regime is not adjusted to allow for the provision of contractor arrangements in which designers and entrepreneurs can incur an income (other than a wage) then the question must be asked “How do we grow the Australian TCF industry, how do we grow the number of T CF businesses and in turn the number of employees?”
Page 2 of 34

Introduction
The TFIA welcomes the opportunity make a supplementary submission to the Review of the
Fair Work Act (“FWA”).
The purpose of this supplementary submission is to reiterate the serious concerns that the
Council of Textile & Fashion Industries of Australia (TFIA) has regarding unworkable aspects of the FW Act, the unrelenting micromanagement of the TCF sector and the broadening of scope of the Modern Award MA000017 in attempts to solve a diminishing problem.
The TFIA also has concerns about the inadequate consultation process leading up to the introduction of any changes to the TCF regime.
About the TFIA
The TFIA is a national not for profit organisation representing businesses and individuals in
TCF industry. Relevant to this submission is the TFIA membership of the International
Apparel Federation and Board and Committee positions including Manufacturing Skills
Australia and Ethical Clothing Australia respectively. The TFIA (and its affiliates) has approximately 1,800 members representing 22,000 workers.
The TFIA consults widely with industry, retailers, researchers, educators and Government agencies. Many of the TFIA's members have expressed concerns about regulation of the
TCF industry. Some members have stated that they believe it may be necessary to look at options other than manufacturing in Australia 1 in order to maintain the commercial viability of their businesses. Others have had their productivity adversely impacted in demonstrating compliance to the current TCF regime. In some cases the process is taking as long as 2 years.
For the last 18 months the TFIA has received increasingly negative feedback about the TCF
Regime from home based workers 2 who are concerned at the impact regulation is having on their businesses, investments and goodwill built up over many years. These home based business owners are now forced under the current legislation to receive their income as a wage removing all incentive to continue operating a business and therefore dramatically escalating the decline of number of TCF businesses and workers employed.
1 TCF manufacturing has been contracting and since 2001 experienced a 42% decline, an accelerating trend in tough economic conditions.
2 See Appendix 4 Transcript of interview regarding impacts on outworkers
Page 3 of 34

About the Australian TCF Sector
In general terms the combined TCF supply chain (manufacture, wholesale and retail) is approx. $27.5 billion sector employing over 200,000 people. TCF products and services play an important role in the everyday lives of Australians. TCF businesses that supply them have invested heavily in capital and logistics management.
Australian TCF manufacturing industries had directly an estimated value add of $2.83 billion in 2009/10. This represented 2.6% of the entire manufacturing sector, with around 17,300
Australian businesses involved in or affiliated with TCF manufacturing.
As at Dec 2011, an estimated 38,500 3 peo ple were employed in Australia’s TCF industries, a
20% decline from 48,000 people identified in the 2008 Federal Review into the TCF sector.
The majority of employees were females employed full-time. Women accounted for nearly
60% of the workforce with a quarter of women employed part-time, an important factor to be considered in the light of their carer and child raising roles.
In the main, companies engaged in TCF activities in Australia are small (indeed micro) to medium sized businesses. Of Australia ’s 17,300 TCF and affiliated businesses, only 8,253
(48%) reported an annual turnover of over $200,000 in 2009.
Moreover, of the total TCF and affiliated businesses, only some 1,400 (or 8% of total) employed 20 people or more as at June 2009. Only 66 (less than 0.5%) employed over 200 people, and thus could be regarded as large businesses.
The size of the local apparel manufacturing supply chain is rapidly contracting and with it the number of home based workers. And yet current amendments to the TCF Regime are being drafted which rely on industry data that is older than 5 years, with some dated as far back as 1996.
About the Australian Clothing Sector
The competitive advantages offered by the local clothing industry are flexibility, sampling, and closeness to market, short turnaround times, innovation, smaller quantities, ethical supply and a quality product particularly for high end design.
3 Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education Manufacturing Data Card Dec 2011 Update
Page 4 of 34

The TFIA AGM Nov 2011 Statistical Report based on 2009 ABS data states that there were
1,701 clothing manufacturing businesses in Australia turning over $200K or more. Of these
286 or 16.8% turned over more than $2mil.
According to TFIA sources the largest clothing manufacturers are generally providers to
Government procurement agencies e.g. Defence, Law Enforcement, and Emergency
Services.
The majority of clothing businesses (84%) are small to medium companies (SMEs) with an average of 4.1 employees per management unit. Victoria (36%) and New South Wales
(35%) followed by Queensland (16%) are home to the majority of employers.
Clothing manufacturing remains the highest employer with close to half of those employed.
The majority of employees were females employed full-time (21,000). Women accounted for nearly 60% of the workforce with a quarter of women employed part-time 4 .
In 2010 / 2011 there were 1,234,764,547 units of apparel imported into Australia for a total
FOB value of $5,011,304,131 and a customs value of $457,837,836. Australian clothing manufacturers have to compete with an average landed price per unit of $4.06. They are most exposed to labour costs and any small changes to Australian legislation can have an amplified impact on the sector.
In general terms the industry has a low barrier to entry and is highly fragmented. Whilst this fosters diversity and opportunity it also makes communication difficult, especially for those with language difficulties.
The TFIA values the work performed and contribution made by the migrant community, most recently the Vietnamese community, in constructing apparel for the local market. It is important that this contribution is recognised, many of whom are women working from home as they raise and educate their families 5 and now look after aging family members.
As the Australian manufacturing sector has declined, so too has the work performed in the home. Again the TFIA believes it is also important to acknowledge that since ‘outworker provisions’ were introduced into legislation in the late 90s gains have been made in the working conditions and remuneration of home based workers. However the current regime
4 Manufacturing Skills Australia Sept 2011 Textile Clothing and Footwear in Australia
5 ABS since 1989 home based workers have been on the increase. Women, who were owner managers of unincorporated enterprises, were most likely to work at their home (47%) followed by a workplace (43%). In comparison, men, who were owner managers of unincorporated enterprises, were more likely to work at a workplace (46%), compared with their home
(21%)
Page 5 of 34

is much tougher and more rigid than in any other time of its existence with further amendments before the Senate being proposed.
In 2008 the Federal Government also funded approx. $1mil pa for 4 years to Ethical Clothing
Australia to provide education and accreditation to over 50 Australian brands using local makers. As at July 2011 assistance has been provided to nearly 6000 homeworkers of which more than 3,000 are in accredited supply chains. Approx. 1400 compliance checks have been performed by the TCFUA involving 570 suppliers. Further funding has been granted by the Federal Government to extend period for another 3 years 6 .
The TFIA believes that assuming the investment has had an impact and based on information about the TCF sector aforementioned i.e. the rapid rate of decline in employment and business numbers, the increasing competitive environment, the gains made over more than 10 years of existing legislation and the improved conditions evident in the testimonials of home based workers, two questions must be asked;
1. Where is the current evidence and data of widespread abuse of vulnerable workers?
2. Why is there a need to continually introduce further “outworker” provisions into legislation compounding the risk of an unworkable TCF regime that incentivises companies to take production offshore?
Consultation process regarding the TCF Regime
The TFIA is concerned that the views of the TCF industry have not been properly canvassed in relation to the FW legislation. As the local industry has contracted so has the attention paid to the TCF industry voice particularly the large number of Small to Medium Enterprises
(SMEs) who have difficulty understanding and interpreting complex legislation.
The TFIA has taken every opportunity provided to it to ensure that Australia has an effective and efficient TCF regime that reflects the appropriate rights of both employers and employees.
Recent developments, however, highlight that the TFIAs role is considered by the
Government to be subordinate to that of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry Union of
Australia’s role and other industry groups. TFIA were not invited to the recent Senate
Hearing 2 Feb 2012 to present the industry case in particular the view of outworkers who want to remain as independent contractors and small business owners.
6 Ethical Clothing Australia (ECA) Annual Report 2011
Page 6 of 34

The TFIA urges the Government to consult more widely on any further changes to the TCF regime in the interests of getting the legislation right and avoiding unintended consequences.
The TFIA has always been a strong advocate of open and honest consultations.
Consequences for TCF sector of current regulatory framework
The TFIA acknowledges the escalation of outsourced manufacturing since tariff reforms and that historically some Australians working from home 7 have been and continue to be in a vulnerable position and that appropriate legislation is required to protect such Australian workers.
However, TFIA believes that home based workers are already afforded comprehensive protection under the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Textile, Clothing, Footwear and Associated
Industries Award 2010 (the TCF Award), together with State legislation, beyond that afforded to employees and contractors in other industries.
The TFIA submits that the existing regulatory framework is overly protective of home based workers at the expense of the broader industry which is evidenced by the Government in its preparedness to fund an accreditation body Ethical Clothing Australia (ECA) to the amount of $1mil per annum whose work is underpinned by the Fair Work Act.
The TFIA's experience is that whilst there are undoubtedly some vulnerable home based workers in the TCF sector; most participants in the TCF industry do not fit that category and should not be defined as outworkers or sweat shop owners.
The current TCF Regime has removed the flexibility to employ casuals and contractors working from home and has become so complex aspects are proving to be unworkable and difficult to comprehend. The Fair Work Act and the new Modern Award MA000017 relies on a broad brush approach in the deeming provisions vastly extending its normal reach in prescribing work arrangements and those involved.
In a nutshell the law attempts to finally put the nail i n the “lets end exploitation of TCF outworkers” coffin. However in attempting to legislate for all possible scenarios unforeseen consequences have emerged that hinder the growth of the TCF sector and create a barrier to entry.
7 TFIA estimates a maximum of 20,000 TCF outworkers in Australia based on number of businesses engaging an average of
11 outworkers. Given 84% of clothing businesses gross less than $2mil the average is more likely to be 5 outworkers or less. NB outworkers can work for 1 or more companies. Supply chains tend to overlap.
Page 7 of 34

This creates a barrier to starting a fashion label from home and the apparel sector is being denied its rights to have the same freedom to choose work arrangements as afforded the rest of the Australian community. In fact it is now only possible to operate as an independent contractor from commercial premises with the added burden of leasing costs.
The TFIA believes that the vast majority of new businesses in Australia have started from home, where overheads are low and people have the flexibility to work the extended hours necessary to build a successful business. In this, the TCF sector is no different, with wellregarded iconic Australian brands, such Billabong and Country Road, starting out this way.
International intelligence reported to the TFIA shows an emerging trend where flexibility in the workplace is highly valued. This is particularly important for those with carer responsibilities, where flexibility means better work/life outcomes, and the ability to balance a range of life responsibilities.
However, despite global trends in workplace flexibility, Australia remains limited in its adoption to this approach.
International Competitive Environment
The TFIA has identified the current economic climate is extremely competitive i.e. Australian dollar above parity, low tariffs, falling demand in favour of offshore online purchasing and yet to be felt the full impact of ASEAN Australia New Zealand Free Trade Agreement in which over 300 tariff lines will be going to zero by 2013.
In the TCF sector rapid change, sustainability, skill shortages, international competitive pressures, economic turmoil and advances in technology are impacting on all parts of the supply chain, compounded by business and consumer uncertainty. Education is therefore critical to the future of the industry as is the ability to have flexibility in workplace arrangements, to adapt to the ever changing local and global trade environment.
“Over the past decade we have witnessed the TCF industry in decline particularly because of aggressive competition from cheap imports and burdensome regulation and red-tape imposed on Australian manufacturers. The decline is obvious from the falling labour market statistics, which are likely to be reflected in the prevalence of outworkers in the industry. It is
Page 8 of 34

without doubt that...in our current global economic climate and with a high Australian dollar,
[this] will place a further burden on local manufacturers.” 8
In 2008 the government commissioned a review of the TCF sector by Professor Roy Green 9 , who recommended that industry adopt,
“A further strategy to change manufacturing production methods to improve productivity and reduce set-up costs and turnaround times from order to delivery, often in conjunction with a view to new market segments. The survey of TCF firms conducted for the Review found that, in response to increased competitive pressures;

40% of firms increased customization to the needs of buyers

27% changed their production systems to enable short and flexible production runs

24% offered a high level of customer service, and
 22 percent changed their production systems to minimize delivery times”
However, since 2008, industry has seen no consideration by government of the need to support a more flexible workplace, instead the regime remains stubbornly rooted to a last century legislative framework based on out-dated data and research, some dated as far back as 1996 (1996 Senate Economics References Committee inquiry). The current legislative framework is too prescriptive and confines the TCF sector to the past, undermining confidence in the sector from within.
Impacts of TCF Regime on SMEs
The TFIA has identified that many workers, who have trained, served apprenticeships or have university degrees, qualified as pattern makers, cutters and product developers now find themselves not knowing from one month to another whether they have long term employment prospects. Testimonials indicate that this can indirectly be attributed to uncertainty and inflexibility of the current legislation which is accelerating the demise of local manufacturing.
8 Australian Industry Group (AiG) Source: FAIR WORK AMENDMENT (TCF INDUSTRY) BILL 2011 (FED) Report -
058P1033
9 Innovative Capability: Review of the Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries, August 2008 by Prof
Roy Green(WRC 2008:9) http://www.teansw.com.au/Curriculum/Textiles%2011-
12/Resources/401_TCF%20review_vol1.pdf
Page 9 of 34

Reports have been made to the TFIA where SMEs have queried that if they conduct their business from home that the legislation defines them as outworker entities (to be treated in the same way as outworkers), forcing them to become employees at a time when the industry is under enormous competitive pressure and jobs are limited. Financial security and/or committing to a home loan for them and their families are constant worries.
In the following video testimonies and quotes, people working in our industry speak about their issues and the difficulties they face:
Emmanuelle [name withheld] the cutter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECdX-JO28Mc
“I currently work as a sub-contractor in the fashion industry, my title being Product Developer and Pattern-Maker, working a 30-40 hour week for a number of small businesses. I work from home because I choose to. I like the flexibility and convenience. I wish to categorically state that I am not an OUTWORKER, but a SUB-CONTRACTOR, having made a personal choice to work from my own home. I am a qualified Fashion Designer with a Fashion Degree obtained from RMIT and have been employed in this industry since graduating over 10 years ago”.
Dharsha Maurice, Pattern Maker & Fashion Product Developer
Contractors who are affected by the TCF Regime are concerned that they are being forced into an employer/employee relationship, with complete disregard for the equity and good will built up in their businesses over time. With added pressure of the costs and time of travelling to work, the loss of benefits in sharing overheads between business and home and the increase childcare or elderly care costs all contribute to this situation.
Many contractors, such as Denise, have invested tens of thousands of dollars in machinery and equipment over the years, now wonder do they really have to sell up and close their business? If Denise is forced to become an employee she could demonstrate that she will not be better off overall under the Individual Flexibility Arrangements (IFA).
Denise [name withheld] the outworker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkS2I4aL1H4
For those who need flexibility to take care of children and aging relatives, working outside the home is neither practical or possible, so they are likely to become unemployed, and fulltime carers on benefits. This impacts productivity within the TCF sector.
A machinist talks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWw5y7Cr-N0
Page 10 of 34

As with all manufacturing Australian industries, the TCF sector has an aging population, the current average age in our sector is estimated to be 48 years old according to Manufacturing
Skills Australia. As cited earlier, many of the people working in TCF sector are women.
What the data doesn’t reflect is number of women working from home in the TCF sector who speak English as a second language and are unlikely to have the confidence to re-train in another skill, if they stop machining.
Vita – machinist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XUaBkcMCu4
The FW Act issues require an understanding of a complex range of ideas and practices, in a sector that has evolved more than most over the last 30 years, accommodating extensive tariff changes and foreign exchange fluctuations. It also requires openness as to how frameworks might be established which allow employers and employees a genuine negotiation and provide a framework for working out reciprocal arrangements; arrangements that have reasonable controls to protect workers, and ensure families are supported in safe home-working environments.
The Ark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxnuLaW6tzM
Ultimately, the Australian TCF Sector needs a regime of regulation which fosters employment, facilitates flexibility and gives rights to workers and / or businesses to request flexibility, without giving up their minimum wage conditions or negating any incentive to operate a business in the sector. However the TFIA finds itself responding to a FW Act review to address the unworkable aspects of the TCF regime, while at the same time having to deal with further changes, compounding the existing problems and confusion.
“1.13 Coalition Senators note that a review of the Fair Work Act is currently underway. The provisions of this Bill should only be considered as part of that review, and along with any other changes proposed in any final and publicly available report resulting from that review.” 10
Collaboration and broad stakeholder involvement is needed to work together to develop legislation that helps us to worker smarter not harder.
Phil Endersbee, Managing Director Wilderness Wear http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGp2_6OPlCo
10 Source: Coalition Senators’ Dissenting Report: FW Amendment (TCF Industry Bill 2011 (FED) 058P1033
Page 11 of 34

Recommendations
The TFIA would like to see a shared understanding of the reality of the issues . It doesn’t believe this currently exists. For those working in the Australian TCF sector under the TCF regime and in particular Schedule F of the TCFAI Modern Award it has become very complicated and frightening.
The following 10 recommendations address the core challenges faced by industry.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Request an official TCF ruling from Fair Work Australia, confirming in line with the
Independent Contractors Act, it is permissible for an entity in the TCF sector to establish themselves as an independent contractor and not be prejudiced because they work from home.
Like people in other sectors, many people working in TCF do so from home (residential premises) in order to have flexibility around care arrangements for their extended family.
However, unlike other sectors working from home in TCF ‘casually’ is unlawful but the penalty is placed on those giving out t he work i.e. the ‘principals’ who face prosecution, even if this is the casual outworkers preference. The law requires that outworker employees, working from residential premises MUST be given a minimum of 20 hours work per week
TCFAI Schedule F.4.2 (a) (ii)) or 15 hours, if approved by the TCFUA. For many workers in the sector, their family commitments mean that it is difficult to commit to regular hours and prefer the flexibility to choose when they accept work.
Manufacturers speak http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJOs0__kdq8
Further during the recent Senate hearing 2 nd Feb 2012 Mr Brett Thompson, Senior
Government Lawyer, Safety Net, Organisations and Protections Branch, Workplace
Relations Legal Group, DEEWR confirmed Senator Thistlewaite’s surmise “For the purposes of the Independent Contractors Act, if someone wants to establish themselves as an independent contractor then they still can, but for the purposes of the Fair Work Act they are deemed to be employees to ensure that the award and the relevant laws –the NES and such
–cannot be undercut”.
Page 12 of 34

This comment would appear to be correct on face value but it omits the important point about the employee being compelled to receive a wage, therefore removing any incentive to choose to be an independent contractor. TFIA recommends that Fair Work make a written determination confirming this point.
At the recent senate hearing, on the Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear
Industry) Bill 2011 (FED), the AiG further compounded this point by stating;
“[We are] strongly opposed to the deeming provisions proposed in the bill because, in the
AiG's view, 'it is not legitimate or fair to deem contractors to be employees in circumstances where parties have agreed to enter into a contractor arrangement'”
Australian Industry Group (AiG)
RECOMMENDATION 2
Amend the current meanings of ‘principal’, ‘outworker’, ‘outworker entity’,
‘arrangement’ and ‘work’ as defined by the Fair Work Act and the TCFAI Modern
Award to reflect the intent of the policy i.e. to protect vulnerable workers.
Introduce exclusions for those professionally qualified and working from home, who do not want to be defined as outworkers.
Listed below are the 4 current definitions which used together capture all possible participants and activities undertaken in the apparel supply chain with little regard for the constraints placed on work arrangements of the competent and entrepreneurial, the educated and professional. The legislation discriminates in favour of non-English speaking migrant workers and forces the local apparel supply chain to comply with it.
The current FWA defines a ‘ principal ’ as;
Principal means:
(a) An employer; or
(b) An outworker entity within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The current FWA defines an ‘ outworker ’ as;
“An outworker is;
(a) an employee who, for the purpose of the business of his or her employer, performs work at residential premises or at other premises that would not conventionally be regarded as being business premises; or
Page 13 of 34

(b) an individual who, for the purpose of a contract for the provision of services, performs work: (i) in the textile, clothing or footwear industry; and (ii) at residential premises or at other premises that would not conventionally be regarded as being business premises”.
The current FWA defines an ‘ outworker entity ’ as;
"Outworker entity" means any of the following entities, other than in the entity's capacity as a national system employer:
(a) a constitutional corporation;
(b) the Commonwealth;
(c) a Commonwealth authority;
(d) a body corporate incorporated in a Territory;
(e) a person so far as:
(i) the person arranges for work to be performed for the person (either directly or indirectly); and
(ii) the work is of a kind that is often performed by outworkers; and
(iii) the arrangement is connected with a Territory.
The current Award defines ‘ arrangement ’ as;
“Arrangement means any arrangement made by a principal with any legal or natural person to have work carried out for the principal, whether or not the person carries out the work, but does not include employment of an employee who is not an outworker to carry out the work”.
Note: The obligations in this part apply whether or not a principal has obtained the work which is the subject of the arrangement pursuant to any other arrangement or from any other person.
The current Award defines ‘ work ’ as;
“Work means work on or in relation to any garment, article or material in the textile, clothing and footwear industry, including for example design, preparation, manufacture, packing, processing and finishing work, and organisation, procurement, control, management or supervision of work”
The above definitions create a “catch all” for the TCF industry, where anyone working from home, in the TCF sector, is defined as an outworker. This captures all those in sampling and design process, including university students, graduates and those starting a business from home.
Students and graduating Australian fashion designers starting a label are also unaware of the proposed amendments to the TCF regime. They are not aware that in starting their own
Page 14 of 34

label from home that they can be defined as an outworker , despite a 4 year fashion degree/qualification from a prestigious Australian University or TAFE.
In addition the definition of ‘work’ contains ‘procurement’ activity which would normally be interpreted as the ordering, indent and purchasing activity of retailers. Boutique owners are unaware of their responsibility under the current and soon to be amended legislation in that they could be declared a ‘principal’ and be responsible for ensuring graduating or emerging designers they purchase from are engaged as employees if they work from home. As a consequence boutique owners are likely to be less willing to purchase Australian made fashion from emerging designers.
Young fashion graduates frequently start working freelance from home, to get experience.
However, faced with the increasing difficulty to find local makers, many are forced to source from overseas, even if they don’t feel comfortable because they don’t know what kind of conditions people are working in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz0OLYUcbgs
Beyond this, fashion student/designers who hand out work to an outworker for sampling cannot employ them casually, THEY MUST EMPLOY THEM WITH FULL BENEFITS AND
ENTITLEMENT and guarantee them a minimum of 20 hours ongoing work. This is not a workable arrangement for students who may face prosecution in breach of the TCFAI
Modern Award. Department officials stated at 2 nd Feb Senate Committee Fair Work hearing that the new amendments will make it easier to prosecute offenders who breach the outworker provisions in the award. A number of students wrote to express their concerns;
'Diploma and Advanced Diploma student's wrote letters yesterday, about their concerns regarding amendments to the TCF labour law regime. I hope TFIA and MPs received lots of emails from TAFE students. It was a shame the closing date was today [17th Feb 2012] as university students have not returned to study yet for 2012'
Debra Lazenby, Lecturer, TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute, 17 Feb 2012
Industry recommends that the definitions be reflective of the nature of outwork i.e. garment construction for volume production, and that the definitions at the very least should exclude activities such as the sampling process, establishment of a new designer label, the activities of a retailer in purchasing product and /or those with a qualification relevant to the fashion occupation. None of these activities are typical of those performed by an ‘outworker’ who is vulnerable to exploitation or sham contracting arrangements.
RECOMMENDATION 3
Page 15 of 34

Request a determination to resolve the anomalies between Australian tax law, FWA and TCFAI Award (Schedule F), so outworker entities are able to receive income through invoicing, where minimum employment standards are honoured, and group tax or entitlements have not been withheld.
Further, allow contractors who have been deemed employees (and hold an ABN) entitlement to unemployment Centre link benefits, if necessary.
During the recent Senate Committee hearing [2 nd Feb 2012] Ms Jennifer Wyborn, Acting
Branch Manager, Safety Net, Organisations and Protections Branch, Workplace Relations
Legal Group, DEEWR advised “The difficulty is that what we have is a piece of legislation
[TCFAI Award, Schedule F], that is deeming independent contractors to be employees.
These people are not in fact employees at common law”.
The amendment “deems outworkers to be employees for the purpose of the Fair Work Act”.
The amendments before the Senate tighten the existing legislation and if passed then outworkers and the principals supplying the work will be required to choose between complying with the Inc ome Tax Act and the Fair Work Act, since it isn’t possible to comply with both without significant financial disadvantage for outworkers and / or breaking at least one law in the case of principals.
Rather shrewdly the onus is always placed on the ‘principal’ handing out the work to deem the outworker (remembering this is broadly defined) as an employee and be paid a wage thereby removing all incentive for the employee to set up and operate under an ABN or ACN structure. In receiving a wage which is taxed it is not common place in Australia for employees to transfer their wage income across to gross sales income in a company.
It’s a fine but critical point and the important distinction is that the legislation has removed the incentive to operate a home based business since all those working from home are to be treated as employees, thereby having a devastating impact on the flexibility of the local apparel supply chain and in turn the growth of the sector.
There is no question that it also disadvantages the outworker entities who have invested a lot of time and resources in building a business. There have been incidences reported to
TFIA where an outworker entity when finding themselves without work have reported to
Page 16 of 34

Centre link for assistance only to be told they are not eligible for unemployment benefits because they still held an ABN.
RECOMMENDATION 4
Extend the ATO’s Contractor Decision Making Tool* to establish a comprehensive
TCF version with the aim to support a core understanding between industry, Fair
Work Australia & TCFUA, and be adopted for use alongside the current Board of
Reference (BOR) Registration to help industry better prepare for more positive compliance outcomes.
* http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.aspx?doc=/content/00095062.htm
Despite the development of a TCFAI Award Guide, to support legislative compliance, through the Ethical Clothing Australia initiative, industry understanding of their responsibilities remains confused and illusive, particularly around the definition between a contractor and an outworker/home-worker (see recommendation 2). Today most compliance systems internationally, have a selfassessment component, so they don’t get caught out on the simple stuff. This means that auditors can focus on the more challenging non-compliances. Doing this through the BOR process would make this more efficient and part of core operational processes.
Industry believes that an extended version of the ATO’s Contractor Decision Making Tool
( http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.aspx?doc=/content/00095062.htm
) has the potential to support a better understanding & education between industry, Fairwork Australia
& unions, and drive stronger legislative compliance with the TCFAI Modern Award. Using this tool in conjunction with the current Board of Reference (BOR) Registration is more likely to help industry better prepare for a more positive Ethical Clothing Australia audit outcome, and better understand their responsibilities generally.
RECOMMENDATION 5
Create multi layered independent support mechanisms available through all stakeholder networks (online, training, mentoring) where businesses can ask questions, and receive specific advice on their situation, without fear or favour.
TFIA believes that education is pivotal to solving issues around exploitation and sham contracting arrangements and that all stakeholders have a role to play in providing support
Page 17 of 34

and advice. Given the complexity of the legislation more resources need to be devoted to this.
The Fair Work Ombudsman’s commitment to Independent Contractors and employees states “The Fair Work Ombudsman helps employees, contractors and community to understand and comply with the new system. We provide education, information and advice, investigate workplace complaints and enforce relevant Commonwealth workplace laws”.
However, it seems that there is no mandate to help employers, when industry members have requested documentation and advice from DEEWR, Ethical Clothing Australia, Fair
Work Australia and the TCFUA, for example, around clarification regarding the anomalies between the Tax law and the Fair Work Act, these enquires have yielded little or no response.
With the exception of the Fair Work Ombudsman who replied that they “will not or cannot provide either specific or general advice”. Giving rise to a growing opinion that there is little or no support for micro and small business employers, under serious economic pressure from government or quasi government agencies, to comply with laws that are not workable, and cannot afford lawyers to prove otherwise.
RECOMMENDATION 6
Consult fully with the TCF sector through the TFIA when State and Federal governments are considering amendments to laws/programs affecting the TCF sector, providing reasonable opportunity to prepare/attend/speak at all relevant hearings.
Peter MacDonald Managing Director, Ramsay McDonald Pty Ltd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdjCV3Mrpx8
“1.3 This inquiry has not been assisted by the fact that a key stakeholder and representative body
– the Council of Textile & Fashion Industries of Australia – was refused permission to appear at the Committee's public hearing.
”
Source: Coalition Senators’ Dissenting Report: FW Amendment (TCF Industry Bill
2011 (FED) 058P1033
As the peak industry body for the Textile Clothing and Footwear (TCF) sector, the TFIA has been representing industry design, branding, manufacturing, distribution, retail activities and
Page 18 of 34

other industry stakeholders, since the 1940’s. Our members and sector supplies into a diverse range of industries including - defence, automotive, mining, fashion, health, construction, land care, public transport, law enforcement and emergency services.
Engaging with government and broader industry stakeholders to ensure our sector is heard means that the TFIA holds multiple board positions, including on the Ethical Clothing
Australia / Home Workers Code Committee, oversees 38 industry standard representatives and in 2011 was awarded a Strategic Capability Program grant, to create a Textile and
Fashion Hub for businesses to develop both product and capability.
To put it simply, the TFIA does the grunt work for the industry, battling to maintain a sector which has face major structural reform in the last 30 years. During the 2 terms of the current government, the TFIA has consistently been ignored in regard to industrial relations concerns and not engaged with on a range of issues. As such, as an industry, we must insist that this situation is rectified and that the voice of the TCF sector be heard.
Since 2008 TFIA membership has increased steadily and is now doubled its size in contrast to union membership in the sector which has dropped to 2,617.
As such, we insist that this situation is rectified and that the government engages with companies and examines the impact of any initiatives or legislative reviews which impact the sector and that a broader range of industry stakeholders are represented and given time to consult.
RECOMMENDATION 7
The government request an investigation, preferably by the Productivity Commission, into the business cost of complying with the current/amended TCF regime on micro and small TCF businesses, and provide logic as to how this regime will reduce possible exploitation of workers in the TCF industry.
Pending the outcome of that report, industry recommends a threshold micro business turnover of $200,000 per annum, before this legislation applies; similar to the threshold for GST.
The Ark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxnuLaW6tzM
Mirabella outro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDJyEOWayg4
Brands committed to operating ethically in Australian and which are signatories to Ethical
Clothing Australia are finding the process long and drawn out. Some companies advise that
Page 19 of 34

with as few as 4 contractors in their supply chain they are still waiting, over 8 months later, to be awarded Ethical Clothing Australia Accreditation. Prolonged audit activity is creating a lot of stress amongst business owners and throughout their supply chain, particularly amongst an ageing workforce many of whom have a basic level of education and English.
Vita and Foon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_IJ9g22fPU
Industry fully agrees that people in the TCF sector working from home are provided with fair working conditions, wages and entitlements. Our issue is that people who work from home are being forced by law to become an employee, when in actual fact they prefer to work as independent contractors. Further that those who prefer to work as contractors are faced with an anti-competitive regulatory burden, which adds an estimated 7% to the costs of running their business, as confirmed by local tax accounting firm, APL Finance (see TCFAI Award:
Schedule F: F.2.2 and F.3.4).
“The cost of implementing and operating a standard time sheet costing system for short run, low margin production is impracticable and unworkable. The additional costs of using outworkers make them uneconomical when compared to employees therefore effectively banning the use of outworkers. The legislation has the potential to kill the clothing industry in Australia, and is effectively banning the use of outworkers in the clothing industry.”
APL Finance
CCIQ (Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland) estimated in March 2011 using the government’s Business Cost Calculator- that the average cost of compliance with state and federal requirements was $43,360, and took 522 hours, per annum to complete. CCIQ also raised concerns that the NSW study used to estimate the time for business to complete the information was inaccurate, advising that it was taking businesses up to 4 times longer to complete than estimated. CCIQ concluded that the total cost of compliance for industry in
Queensland would be in the region of $21 million per year.
The real intention of the current and amended legislation was and is to help outworkers.
However, the TCF regime is extremely complex and relies on core Commonwealth powers and State legislation. Pending amendments before the Senate if passed has the potential to make it even more onerous and confusing.
It defies good policy sense for the government at a federal level to, in effect, attempt to harmonise laws in the absence of proof that they have delivered results at a state and/or territory level, a concern reflected by The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Page 20 of 34

(ACCI), at the senate hearing, on the Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear
Industry) Bill 2011 (FED), on 2 nd February 2012, where ACCI suggested that this also be part of a Productivity Commission inquiry:
“Apart from references in the Minister’s second reading speech to a November 2011
Channel 9 story in a Melbourne TCF " sweatshop " and a July 2011 Sunday Herald Sun report on " sweatshops and outworkers producing school uniforms for Victorian families for as little as $7 an hour ", there are no examples provided in the extraneous materials as to the precise deficiencies of the existing legal framework, what recommendations these proposals are based on (such as from the Productivity Commission or a dedicated independent inquiry by the Federal Government) and how the proposed measures will reduce possible exploitation of workers in the
TCF industry.”
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI).
Department officials and politicians alike have difficulty in understanding the legislation, as evidenced a t the Senate Committee hearing on 2 nd February 2012. At that hearing Senator
Back asked “so if they [contractors] have an ABN and they present their BAS every quarter, and if they employ and go through the PAYG provisions and all those sorts of activities, what are they under Australian law? Are they an employee or are they a con tractor?”
Ms Jennifer Wyborn, Acting Branch Manager, Safety Net, Organisations and Protections
Branch, Workplace Relations Legal Group, DEEWR answered “They will be different things in relation to different pieces of legislation, and that goes to the heart of the issue that
Senator Marshall was raising before in relation to Superannuation and Senator Fisher’s question about taxation as well. This is, as I am sure you will appreciate an incredibly complex area of the law . Identifying the relevant legal status of these bodies is a very difficult issue that is overlaid with constitutional questions and not something that is easily managed”.
As stating in the opening of this paper around half the companies in the TCF industry turnover less than $200,000 per annum. This defines them as “micro” businesses.
Considering the complexity of the current legislation and the amendments under review, it is almost impossible for TCF businesses of this size to understand their legal obligations and responsibilities easi ly. Considering DEEWR’s legal management and senior lawyers are challenged in interpreting this legislation, it is hardly surprising that the incidence of noncompliance for many businesses is high. There is merit in making tools available to assist
Page 21 of 34

SMEs in their compliance in particular to self-assess for minor infringements
(Recommendation 4).
Further it is widely accepted by industry and other stakeholders in the sector that focusing on improving compliance of larger buyers will have a far greater influence than micro businesses turning over less than $200,000 annually.
RECOMMENDATION 8
Commission an independent audit -using international benchmarking methodologies- to analyse data gathered by Ethical Clothing Australia compliance audits since 2008, with a view to this both informing legislative needs and to promote Australian made ethically accredited products.
“How can such a situation arise; an industry in crisis, no definite knowledge of whether a problem exists, no definite knowledge of the size of the problem, introduction of draconian legislation which will place further costs on production to be carried by small business which cannot be complied with and will not fix the issue”.
APL Financial
There is a presumption of fact in government s’ perspective of the situation within the TCF sector with regard to exploitation of outworkers. Many government reports make similar statements to that quoted below from the Senate Hearing on 2 nd February 2012:
“2.27 It is clear to the Committee, based on the evidence presented to this inquiry as well as that provided to past Senate Committee inquiries, that the mistreatment and exploitation of outworkers is a long-standing problem that continues to blight the textile, clothing and footwear industry in A ustralia. The Committee is appalled that this remains the case.”
There is no material research to indicate that the widespread exploitation of workers in the clothing industry remains the case or indeed that it is greater than in other industries.
Concerns have been raised that government is using limited and/or out of date data when considering the recent Fair Work Amendments (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill
2011.
The most recent data quoted in the amendments is 5 years old (2007) and is based on the testimony of 13 outwork interviews, other data as old as 1996 is quoted also. On the
Page 22 of 34

contrary, in conducting many interviews over the past months with outworkers, the TFIA has found that all those interviewed advised that neither they nor anyone they knew in their community was being paid $3-4 per hour. There was only one exception, where an outworker said they had heard a story on Vietnamese community radio.
More recent government reports estimate that through the DEEWR/Federally funded Ethical
Clothing Australia initiative that ECA had engaged with approximately 25% of an estimated
25,000 outworkers since 2008. Industry recommends that ECA data –in consultation with industry stakeholders- be audited independently and internationally benchmarking, so data may have a purpose in informing the legislative framework and in promoting export of ethically made Australian TCF.
This view is reiterated amongts the numerous recommendations of the “ Ethical threads:
Corporate social responsibility in the Australian garment industry , 2007” (Emer Diviney and
Serena Lillywhite, http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/DivineyLillywhite_ethical_threads.pdf
) Report which recommended “funding further research to provide up-to-date data on working conditions and numbers of outworkers in Australia”. The National Retailers Associations appeared to concur with this view in their comments made at the Senate hearing on 2 nd
February 2012, where they stated;
'There is no compelling evidence justifying the need for the radical changes proposed”
National Retailers Associations (NRA).
Our concern is that the TCF sector is an industry in crises; basing its future and legislation on the outdated testimonies of 13 outworkers, defies logic.
Philip Endersbee, Managing Director, Wilderness Wear http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc-AXNNh9A0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsUhUhlF78g
Page 23 of 34

RECOMMENDATION 9
Amend legislation relating to right of entry provisions to include 24 hours notice on evidence of a breach, and request Ministerial approval to determine exceptions on proof of accreditation, these exceptions include Australian, ISO and international accreditations.
The existing right-of-entry without notice (normally, 24 hours notice is required) applies to suspected breaches relating to home-based work. The proposed amendments of the Bill would have the effect of extending this right-of-entry to business premises in an attempt to capture ‘sweatshops’. Once again broadening the legislation and capturing more activity in the TCF sector than would normally be the case.
To balance this extended right, a new subsection will provide for exceptions for principal places of business of persons who are “accredited”. The accreditation will be by “a person or body specified by name in the regulations” and must be “in writing” and “in force”.
Before being named in the regulations as an accreditor, the Minister must be satisfied that the accreditor’s aims are consistent with the objectives set out in proposed section 789AC
(new subsection 483A(7)).
RECOMMENDATION 10
Lobby Government and its data collection agency (ABS) to redefine the TCF sector to capture the real size and dimension of the TCF industry in Australia using a whole supply chain approach.
Definitions that used to clearly separate a wholesaler from a retailer or a manufacturer from a brand owner no longer apply, so current measures applied to assess the TCF sector are not telling the real story (see figures in About TCF Sector). Today many retailers have their own product lines and direct control over production, manufacturers are selling directly to customers online and agents are designing ranges. In fact fashion designers and those that service the TCF sector are currently not included in sector data. New parameters are required to accurately measure TCF performance and define the participants. This is essential to underpin a relevant policy framework that will foster greater collaboration between stakeholders.
Page 24 of 34

Appendix 1: Letter from SME regarding hourly rates.
Author: [name withheld]
Company: Uniforms Made Here For You
Products: Uniforms
Case Study -Re: Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry)Bill
2011- Outworkers .
People want to work from home for various reasons. Most businesses, ours included, started off as a work from home ‘cottage industry’ which grew and we have been employing people for 24 years.
The clothing industry, which is female dominated, would have a large ‘work from home’ preference for child raising issues and these people have set themselves up as a business with a business name and ABN Number, supply tax invoices, have the right to negotiate their payment, have their own machines and equipment and pay GST.
The statement that Homeworkers earn only $4.00 per hour – I have been told by one of my contractors that this happens only when someone is learning to sew i.e. instead of taking say
20 minutes to make a shirt they take say, 2 hours. Also they can refuse to work for this amount. “….buyer & seller agreement….
(16.12.11 Fashion & Textile publication).
Having everyone working from home ‘cottage industry’ and putting a clause in the award to cover these contractors would prevent the outworker clause in the Award being misinterpreted.
The TCF Fair Work Amendment Bill tabled in parliament ( 1/12/11 Fashion & Textile publication) outlines that everyone working from home is an employee. Therefore, is it discrimination if other home workers such as hairdressers & accountants are not included?
In such case, if they have been paid unfairly they can recover unpaid amounts up the supply chain which raises the question as to why they work for an unfair amount in the first place?
In my opinion, the ideal situation would be that ‘employees’ be considered people that work on the premises of the employer and everyone not working on employers premises should be ‘contractors’ as there is no way an employer can control how and when the work is done.
I’m beginning to think that a Textile Industry is not wanted in Australia and that it is being taken apart bit by bit. With all these unfair rules and regulations businesses will definitely go overseas or just shut down.
Page 25 of 34

Appendix 2: Letter from SME regarding inconsistencies in paperwork
Author: [name withheld]
Company: Tatyana Ariyan Design
Products: Ladies wear
Case Study – Re: BOR Application Process
I went through the BOR application process and found out 2 important things;
Firstly, the "Chicken and egg" problem –before application for BOR can be submitted, a designer must have to have all agreements with suppliers in place. Before agreements can be signed, the BOR number needs to be put on a form. BOR number is not allocated until
BOR application is successful. I checked this with the Union, and they wanted agreements first.
Secondly, trying out a supplier - in August I tried a new embroidery service. It is an embroidery shop in Kew. Obviously they have to go into my quarterly list. The problem here is this: total price of the work was $20, I will never use these people again (I didn't like their style). There is not ongoing relationship between our two companies, but according to union,
I still have to have an agreement.
This completely limits business ability to "try out" a supplier. Perhaps it could be suggested that some sort of volume/value limit, after which a company obviously having a "relationship" with a supplier and need to have an agreement be put in place. It seems a bit unnecessary to set up an agreement for $20 of work.
Page 26 of 34

Appendix 3: Communications from Home based workers
Author: [name withheld]
Company: SKOLA
Products:
Case Study
– Re: Wages and conditions
I [name withheld] is a contracted outworker for SKOLA and also a member of the Textile
Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia.
I have been informed that my working position from a contracted outworker is to be changed to full time/part time/ casual. What I don’t understand is why I am being hassled by the Fair
Work Trade all the time. I am a member of the union, I pay every week to be protected from constantly being hassled, I follow everything that is required under the law and I fill out the forms.
This makes the business difficult as you are making them drive out of business in Australia.
There will be no job opportunities in Australia and everything will be shipped overseas. I have 2 children and a family to support. I try to provide my family with everything that they need. If there is no work for me I am unable to provide for my family.
In the circumstances of the way I get payed by SKOLA is a standard award wage plus supper. I am more than happy to get payed at this rate. What concerns me is, I always get hassled and it makes it difficult. I believe I do everything right of what is required. But, there are workers out there who are getting paid by the duration to make the garment and they are not having a difficult time with the union. My working obligations with SKOLA at this point I am more than happy to continue to work with them as a contracted outworker.
I am unable to see myself, working as a contracted outworker, to be a full time/part time/casual worker. I find that it will not work and it will be unfair for both parties. The work is not constantly availa ble all the time, it’s available only seasonally.
I strongly state you view this letter as my concern and opinion of what the situation matter between myself and the union.
Page 27 of 34

Appendix 4: Transcript of telephone interview with home based worker
Date: 7 th December 2011
Transcript : Interviewee:: Jo [name withheld but works for Victorian clothing principal]
Interviewer :: Paula Rogers TFIA
Duration of interview : 10minutes 25 seconds
PAULA: I want to let you know Jo that we are recording this conversation and just to confirm that you are working within the clothing industry in Australia and that you’ve been working – can you tell me how many years you’ve been working in the garment industry?
JO: I work nearly 15 year with sewing
PAULA: And the company that you are doing contracting for at the moment how long have you been working for them?
JO: About 2 years
PAULA: Maybe if you tell me a little bit about you. How long have you been, in Australia, how long have you been living here?
JO: About 25 years
PAULA: And what country did you come from?
JO: Vietnam
PAULA: And how many Children do you have, jo?
JO: I have Three.
PAULA: And can you tell me how old are they?
Jo: The big one is 21, the second is 20 and another one is 17.
PAULA: And what do like about working as a contractor from home?
JO: I like to works as a contractor at home, because my husband and children can help me.
PAULA: And do you have any challenges working from home?
Jo: Sorry, I misunderstand
Paula; Do you have any difficulties working from home?
Page 28 of 34

JO: No, everything fine, it’s very good for me
PAULA: Do you have any one else at home to take care of at home apart from your children?
JO: I can look after my children and I can work from home that is why I work at Home, I can look after my children and look after my father, he is 85 years old already- I can cooking, go to the doctor and do everything
PAULA: OK so you can fit everything in, so that you can take of your children your father ..
JO: Yes, yes ..that’s right
PAULA: And for the company that you are doing the contracting for at the moment, do they pay you well?
JO: Yes, they pay very good, and everything very good now
PAULA: And do you have enough work from them
JO: Yes, very good
PAULA: And if you had a problem with them do you think you would be able to talk with them about whether or not you are uncomfortable with the work you are doing?
Jo: Yes, we are look like friendly, if it is difficult we can discuss something
Paula; And what do think of the laws at the moment that make it difficult for you to work more flexibly from home?
JO: I think they are no good, I work and I know how hard or how easy I do, so that this is my job and my business, because if it is no good I can find another job or find another company, you know. I can I can do this one, do this one … this is a freedom country
PAULA: So you have the choice to negotiate the price?
JO: Pardon
PAULA: You can negotiate the price?
JO: Negotiate, what is this?
PAULA: You agree with the price with the company you contract for?
JO: They give me the good price, just right by the time do, that’s why it is good for me now
Page 29 of 34

PAULA: And if you are not happy with the price you can discuss?
JO: Yes, if I am not happy with the price I can discuss with them, if they ..If they don’t agree,
I can find another job, that is easy
PAULA: And do you have any concern about the involvement of the union , on the work that you do?
JO: They talk with me, they want me to do the outworker, but because I can’t do the outworker, I want to be a contract, because sometimes I am busy and I want to work less, and sometimes I am free, I can work more hours, every week I can’t do 38 hours.
PAULA: So it’s difficult for you to work 38 hours a week, sometimes you want to work more sometimes you want to work less?
Jo: Yes, that’s right
PAULA: OK. And when you talk about working more or working less, how many hours is that?
JO: How many what?
PAULA: How many hours is that? Could you work 60 hours a week, or is it less than that?
JO: sometimes I work 20 hours a week, sometimes I work 40, 45 hours a week, if I am busy.
PAULA: OK.
JO: My father helps me a lot, I can say how many hours I work a well ..very hard to say that.
PAULA: But you like the way that you work at the moment?
JO: Yes, I like the work now because the price suits for me. I can work more or less ..I do myself, you know.
PAULA: And have you ever been offered 3 or 4 dollars an hour for the work that you do?
JO: Never, I think that is a stupid question you know because we are know what how much
..they pay me, if they pay 3 dollar, 4 dollar I don’t work for them, I can say no. They can
??…me, if they pay 3 dollar 4 dollar I don’t know what they don’t say no with the boss. I feel funny, it someone say something like that why you can choose yourself …more but difficult to understand
PAULA: Do you know anyone who has ever been offered that kind of money?
Page 30 of 34

JO: Sorry
PAULA: Do you know anyone who has been asked to do work for 3 or 4 dollars an hour?
JO: No, never, I never hear, I just hear this one from the union.
PAULA: OK, Is there anything that you would like to add Jo in our conversation?
JO: I just like to tell the union “please, we already do the good job now, now everyone knows it is very hard to get the job, because they [union] do too much and after we lose the job who will feed my family, who will pay me, very hard to get the job now if we go to Centrelink -the
Union say no ..everyone must look for find job to get unemployment – everyone knows it is hard to find a job now. So just please I feel very very happy now, do n’t draw too much
[attention] to my business, I want everything OK, I don’t want to lose the job. If I loose the job who will pay me, if the Union can guarantee then OK, no worries, they will guarantee the job for me OK …I hear them, I will work with them ..and join the union and do everything, but if they can’t guarantee the job for me, please do draw too much to my business. Leave me, my boss and my company. OK?
PAULA: Thanks Jo,
Paula advises Jo to call if she needs any further help and if Jo no longer wishes to have the recording, I can delete.
Page 31 of 34

Appendix 5: Letter from home based SME
Submitted on: Friday, 9 December 2011
Company: Pyn
Products: Ladies wear
Case Study – Re: Very small business and the Textile Clothing Footwear and
A ssociated Industries Award 2010’ (the Award) and the National Employment
Standards (nes)
I am 28 years old and I have been running my own business for 3 years, I am a sole trader and I have no employees in short I am a very small business. I have worked in the Textiles,
Clothing and Footwear industry for 4 years prior to starting my business and before that I studied clothing production and design for 2 years.
Luckily during my time working for others I was able to forge relationships with manufactures which has helped me in starting my own label. These relationships helped me as the aforementioned makers let me start small with low minimums.
After working with this maker for a couple of years I received a call saying that they were closing their factory because of fears of the Union. This left me in a tailspin as I now had to find new makers and fast. I went to the Ethical Clothing Australia website to start my research, I called all of the accredited companies on the list and found that many of them were not interested in working with me because of the small quantities that I get produced, or that they had enough work on as they could only employ a limited amount of staff as they had to give people full time work. How is the TCF manufacturing industry in Australia going to grow in this limiting environment?
Based on the way that things are going, the Textile Clothing Footwear and Associated
Industries Award 2010 (the Award) and the National Employment Standards (NES) is going to put more and more people out of work, if people in the TCF industry are unable to employ people on an independent contractor basis, in turn the TCF manufacturing industry will be forced completely off-shore.
Our work flow is seasonal; it is very hard to be able to guarantee full-time hours for machinists. I don’t know how new labels are going to function, how will they be able to start
Page 32 of 34

off small as I did. Furthermore, how will they even be able to get their garments produced here in Australia?
The other side to this is that of the machinists themselves, many who have families who require flexible work hours from home. Many people in different industries are afforded the right to work from home as independent contractors and have the privacy to do so without being visited by Unions.
I do not want anyone to be exploited; quite the opposite I want people to be educated of their rights and for them to be able to make an informed decision on their fair pay in terms that suit them.
Emails
Hi [name withheld],
One of our outworkers just complained to us about the Union visiting her. They were asking her personal questions like when she arrived in Australia, how many kids she have etc she didn’t want to answer them but she felt bullied into giving answers.
Fair enough that we as the employer put up with this behaviour but to harass our employees is uncalled for. Is there anything we can do?
Thanks
[name withheld]
Page 33 of 34

Page 34 of 34