Clarity Around the 'Service Excellence Program'
Professionals and Employers have every right to be concerned about the 'Service Excellence Program'.
We’ve recently been alerted to the fact that Fitness Australia is attempting to close out registration alternatives under the guise of their ‘Service Excellence Program’ and the official sounding, ‘Quality Assurance Employment’.
Professionals have expressed their concerns about the validity of the included "mandate" that Fitness Australia registered businesses only employ Fitness Australia registered professionals.
These concerns are well founded.
Far from being ‘Service Excellence’, this program shows a disrespect for the rights of professionals. It’s misleading for employers. It ignores government mandated best practice and it demonstrates a lack of contact with our increasingly diverse industry.
The “Service Excellence Program” does not reflect the rights of professionals.
From our 'Open Letter to Recruitment Managers', "... if an employer were to make fitness registration a condition of employment, this would constitute an adverse action against the employee (or potential employee) and is, ultimately, illegal." For your reference, the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act are mentioned below.
Irrespective of Fitness Australia's opinion as to whether or not these rules apply to them, does anyone dispute that the intention of the Fair Work Act is to protect the rights of employees?
Shouldn’t anything called “Service Excellence” reflect the government's vision of best practice?
The only authority in our industry comes from the government.
I’m aware there is a significant portion of the fitness industry under the illusion that Fitness Australia has government or legal authority. This is a fallacy that is never properly addressed by Fitness Australia.
Professionals should be aware that they have every right to work in the fitness industry without Fitness Australia registration.
While the ‘mandate’ of the ‘Quality Assurance’ program is that employers only recruit Fitness Australia registered professionals, employers should also note that, far from being an obligation, there is every chance this is illegal.
"Quality Assurance Guarantee"?
A review of the AusREPS directory shows that just 43% of professionals have accumulated the required CEC in the previous registration period.
The gap between 'guarantee' and '43% compliant' should be a genuine concern for managers thinking they can rely exclusively on Fitness Australia registration as an assurance that ongoing development is taking place.
Note; '43%' excludes anyone in their first two years of registration. If these are added to the total, the number of professionals on the AusREPS directory that are compliant with Fitness Australia's own rules falls to 31%.
Why make fitness recruitment any harder?
We know that recruitment and retention of staff is one of the greatest operational challenges for fitness employers. There is nothing to be gained by adding arbitrary rules to the recruitment process.
We also know that a professional may accept an employer's conditions of registration to get a role, but there’s every chance they’ll remember their right to choose was ignored (we’ve met many that resented this imposition). It seems a poor way to begin the employer/employee relationship. For no obvious gain.
By contrast, demonstrating respect and support from the outset goes a long way towards building stronger and more resilient teams. And if that reduces staff turnover, everybody wins.
Dennis Hosking
Managing Director & Founder, FITREC.
Fair Work Act 2009 key sections as relevant to fitness industry association:
Section 342–Meaning of adverse action (discrimination based on terms of employment)
Section 346–Protection (against adverse action)Section 347–Meaning of engages in industrial activity (inc. paying a fee to an association)
Section 349–Misrepresentations (regarding obligation to be a member of an industrial association)
From our Open Letter to Recruitment Managers