Unfair Dismissal – Your worker has been with you for HOW long?

How long does an employee have to be employed before they’re eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim?  The short answer is “that depends on the size of your business.”  If you’re a small business, the employee will have 12 months before they can claim eligibility. If you employ more than twelve employees, they will only have six months. But how is that six months calculated?

 

In Emma Wells v ABC Blinds & Awnings [2016] FWC 8260 the worker was employed between 4 February 2016 and 4 August 2016. She was originally engaged as a casual employee for the first three months and was later offered a permanent position, which she retained for another three months.

 

It’s important to note that during her casual employment, the worker worked regularly on a roster based system and took two days of unpaid leave within this period. 

 

The worker was sacked shortly after arriving at work on 4 August 2016 – exactly six months after her first day of work with the Employer.

 

The Employer argued that 1) the Applicant’s service as casual employee should not be included when calculating continuous service and 2) if the casual employment were deemed to be included, her continuous service would not add up to six months as she had taken two days off during that time. 

 

The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant’s employment was regular and systematic and therefore it could be included as part of her continuous service.

 

However, in light of the unpaid leave taken during her casual employment, the Applicant was found not to have served the minimum employment period, meaning she was not a person protected from unfair dismissal and her application was dismissed.  

 

So what are the lessons here?

1. A worker’s casual employment may be classified as continuous service for the purposes of the unfair dismissal laws depending on the regularity of their work schedule and also their expectations of future employment.
2. Any unpaid leave taken during casual employment will not break an employee’s continuous service, but it will also not contribute their continuous service with an employer.
    

If this all sounds too confusing and overwhelming, never fear! Call one of the workplace relations lawyers at Nevett Ford on (03) 9614 7111 for advice and assistance on all of your employment law matters. 

 

Read More»

Doctors Boss fined over $50,000 for threatening worker

The fact that an employer is a small business, that is having fewer than 15 employees, does not stop significant penalties being imposed upon it for proven breaches of the Fair Work Act.

Whatever size its business, an employer, must comply with the law.

This much is plain from the decision in FWO v Windaroo Medical Surgery Pty Ltd & Others (No 2) [2016] FCCA 2505.

In this case the Federal Circuit Court awarded penalties totalling $51,480 against the employer and two managers, who had been involved in breaches of the Act.

The employer threatened an employee doctor not to complain to the Fair Work Ombudsman about non-payment of his salary.

The doctor resigned and left Australia but the Fair Work Ombudsman took action not only to recover amounts owing to the doctor but also to ensure that employers understand that breaches of the Act have consequences.

The decision is a clear signal that employers and their managers, whatever their size, can expect stiff treatment for infringing a workers rights.

There are strong protections in the Fair Work Act to ensure that workers are not subjected to adverse action.  Employers should make sure they get legal advice from a workplace relations specialist before acting hastily. Equally workers who believe they have been treated unfairly should act quickly to protect their rights. Generally all rights to take action under the Act for unfair or unlawful dismissal must be done within 21 days of being sacked.

Read More»

Employer’s liability for the criminal conduct of its employees

 

The High Court of Australia in a recent decision of Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37 looked at the vexed issue of vicarious liability for institutions arising out of sexual abuse.

The majority of the High Court found that a criminal offence such as sexual abuse by an employee does not prevent the possibility that the institution will be liable vicariously.

The High Court determined that the relevant test to be considered is whether in this case the role of the housemaster placed him in a position of power and intimacy with a boarder, that gave the housemaster the occasion for the wrongful acts, and that because the housemaster took advantage of his role as housemaster, the abuse could be regarded as having been committed in the course or scope of his employment.

 Because much of the evidence to determine the actual role of the housemaster as assigned by the school has been lost, the school could not have a fair trial on the issue of liability.

The school was also prejudiced because the claimant conveyed the impression that he was not bringing proceedings and subsequently changed his mind.

Furthermore the claimant had brought actions against the direct wrongdoer and had resolved such actions.

Accordingly, it is clear that cases involving sexual abuse and the liability of an institution for the acts of its employees will be determined upon a careful consideration of the precise role of the employee and whether or not such a role gives the occasion for the wrongful act.

An examination of the role will include looking at the authority, power, trust, control and the ability provided by the employer to achieve intimacy with a victim.

 

Read More»

You need to finish what you start

The Fair Work Commission is committed to “a fair go all round”. This does not mean, however, that it is there purely for the convenience of one party to an application.

This much is demonstrated in Newbey v Atlas Group Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 5246.

On 22 April 2016 Mr Newbey applied for an unfair dismissal remedy arising from the termination of his employment at Atlas.

When Atlas lodged its response saying that the termination was a genuine redundancy the commission listed the application for conferences and directions, neither of which Mr Newby attended or complied with over a two month period.

As a date for participation or compliance approached, Mr Newbey, who had obtained another job in the meantime, routinely emailed the commission that he was unavailable requesting another time.

Matters came to a head when he had not lodged documents by 27 September 2016 in compliance with directions earlier given. When the commission could not reach Mr Newbey and there was no explanation from him, it dismissed his application under section 399A of the Fair Work Act.

The lesson for dismissed workers is that they must be prepared to see their applications through.

Read More»

Fixed means just that

A security guard employed at the Manus Island Detention Centre has been found not to have been unfairly dismissed when extensions to a fixed term contract of employment ended.

The decision is reported at Cowan v Wilson Parking Australia trading as Wilson Security [2016] FWC 5768.

Mr Cowan was employed as a security guard at Manus between March 2014 and April 2016.

His original contract of employment had an end date of 30 September 2014.

When the contract was about to end he was offered a further contract, which took him to October 2015 and then two further extensions that took him to the end of April 2016.

Each time his employment was extended, Wilson specified that there was an end date and as a consequence Mr Cowan would not be entitled to be paid a redundancy if his employment was not extended.

In the end Wilson did not extend Mr Cowan’s employment because a police certificate that Mr Cowan had supplied when he first started with Wilson showed that he had a conviction for driving offences and Wilson concluded that Mr Cowan would not be able to obtain a security licence.

Along with Mr Cowan, Wilson also let five other employees go, whose fixed term contracts with extensions had also expired.

Although Commissioner Wilson acknowledged that a fixed term contract could be a sham he was satisfied that that was not the case with Mr Cowan.

Wilson did not want to commit to permanent employment because at the time it was negotiating with Transfield, which held the head security contract with the Australian Border Force to continue to supply guards to Manus Island.

Against this backdrop and letters from Wilson to Mr Cowan each time he had an extension that his employment would end unless further extended, Commissioner Wilson had no difficulty in deciding that Mr Cowan’s employment ended because of the effluxion of time and not at the initiative of the employer, Wilson.

Read More»

Please ask nicely

Peter Lambos was a bus driver with the ACT Internal Omnibus Network.

In September 2014 he was having problems with his driver’s seat and complained about it to a manager.

Three months later, the problem persisting, he contacted his employer’s workplace health and safety coordinator.

There was a dispute as to what Mr Lambos actually said to the coordinator in their conversation but it was not disputed that he mentioned “Columbine”, a reference to the spree killings at Columbine High School in the United States in 1999.

Mr Lambos was suspended on full pay whilst the employer investigated what it regarded as serious misconduct constituted by:

1. Mr Lambos allegedly saying “If ACTION touch me this will be another Columbine”;
2. Inappropriate behaviour to colleagues in breach of the respect equity and diversity framework constituted by accusing management of being corrupt.

After the investigation was held, which took some months, Mr Lambos was terminated from employment for serious misconduct.

Commissioner Kovacic found the serious misconduct established and that the consequent dismissal was not a harsh, unjust or unreasonable response: Lambos v ACT Government as represented by the Territory and Municipal Services Directorate [2016] FWC 3835.

All Mr Lambos wanted was a driver’s seat that did not “bottom out” causing jarring injuries but the way he went about trying to get something that was perfectly reasonable led to him not only not having a proper seat but also not having a proper job.

Read More»

Don’t be late! These are the risks of filing an unfair dismissal application out of time.

If you are terminated from your employment, you will only have 21 days from the date the dismissal takes effect to file an unfair dismissal of general protections application with the Fair Work Commission.


The Fair Work Commission is notoriously strict with its application filing deadlines and will only extend the time for lodgement in exceptional circumstances.


In the matter of Langtry and Mitolo Group Pty Ltd, the applicant filed his application seven weeks’ out of time. Mr Langtry’s explanation for his late lodgement was that he was unaware of the existence of the unfair dismissal jurisdiction within the Fair Work Commission and it was not until discussing the matter with a family matter that he learned he could make such an application. As we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse and in Langtry and Mitolo Group Pty Ltd, the application was not allowed to be filed out of time.


The 21 day lodgement period is calculated on calendar days, rather than business days, so if you feel you have been unfairly terminated, act quickly!


Contact the Workplace Relations team at Nevett Ford on (03) 9614 7111 to ensure you are fully aware of your rights and entitlements. 

Read More»

The importance of hospitality venues getting proper advice about pay obligations

It is most important that employers make sure they understand what wages they need to pay their employees, including penalty rates and payments for public holidays.

This issue has recently been highlighted with a restaurant chain being obliged to reimburse staff $21,700.00 for underpaying employees for their Christmas day entitlements.

Many underpayments are inadvertent but it is important to ensure that restaurants comply with their minimum obligations under the Australian Workplace laws.

Employees who wish to ensure they comply with their workplace obligations should not hesitate to contact the Workplace Relations department of Nevett Ford Lawyers.

Nevett Ford Lawyers provide advice on all aspects of Employment Law.

Read More»

Sticks and stones may break bones but names can get you sacked

Many employers have policies or codes of practice to govern the relationships between employees.

Employees who abuse their colleagues or gossip about them can face dismissal as a sanction because what they say is a breach of the employer’s polices or codes.

The Fair Work Commission recently heard two unfair dismissal applications that related to misconduct based on what employees said.

In Sayers v CUB Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 3428, the Commission found that a dismissal based on an employee swearing and racially abusing a colleague was justified.

In Beamish v Calvary Health Care Tasmania Ltd [2016] FWC 1816 the Commission found that a dismissal based on emails gossiping about or disparaging a manager was not justified although the emails showed a lack of judgment.

In both cases the Commission found that what Mr Sayers and Ms Beamish said were breaches of their respective employer’s policies or codes on how to behave towards others.

The language Mr Sayers was found to have used was threatening, racially motivated and littered with four letter words.

Mr Sayers knew what the correct procedure was for complaining about a colleague: racially abusing him was not the way to go.

Fifteen years of unblemished service with CUB and an otherwise good relationship with management did not help Mr Sayers.

The Commission, like CUB, showed no tolerance for racial abuse and the dismissal was upheld.

Ms Beamish had been sarcastic and disparaging in her comments about a manager. Some of what she said was funny – but at the manager’s expense.

Although not abusive or racially motivated what she said was still contrary to Calvary’s values distilled in its code of conduct as “hospitality, healing, stewardship and respect”.

Ms Beamish apologised at the first opportunity and recognised her behaviour as immature and inappropriate.

The Commission was prepared to reinstate her because it was satisfied she would be “welcome back by the overwhelming majority of employees”.

Read More»

Lost your licence? Lose your job

If an employee loses his driver licence where driving is a part of his work, he can be fairly dismissed for misconduct. This much is demonstrated by the decision in Zeiter v Melway Bin Hire and Demolition Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 2823.

Mr Zeiter was stopped by police for using a mobile phone while driving. During the stop the police notified Mr Zeiter that his licence had been suspended for a period of three months.

When Mr Zeiter told his employer about the difficulties with his driver licence the employer effectively terminated him but did not tell him for nearly a month afterwards.

At the hearing of the application the employer argued that Mr Zeiter’s failure to maintain a driver licence was a frustration of the employment contract so that there was no dismissal, as opposed to a breach of the employment contract for which there could be a dismissal.

Commissioner Ryan thought the better analysis was that of breach of contract.

He found that the employer had not acted in a procedurally fair way towards Mr Zeiter but that the shortcomings were not sufficient to find that the dismissal had been harsh or unjust or unreasonable.

Read More»

Reinstatement is the primary remedy

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 the primary remedy for an unfair dismissal is reinstatement of the employee to employment.

Yet even where reinstatement is sought, the Fair Work Commission does not often order it.

One reason seems to be that employers consistently argue that reinstatement is simply not viable because the trust and confidence necessary for a continuing employment relationship has been broken.

The decision in Singh v Metro Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 2291 demonstrates the circumstances in which the Commission will order reinstatement.

Ms Singh was a station assistant who was dismissed for the alleged theft of lost property.

The Commission found Metro’s investigation flawed and that short of stealing the lost property Ms Singh had dealt with it in breach Metro’s lost property policy.

Ms Singh had an impeccable work record over 10 years of service and maintained her right to be reinstated as the proper remedy for her dismissal.

Although she had applied for other jobs after she was dismissed she had not been successful in obtaining any.

What influenced the Commission in ordering reinstatement were two factors:

1. Distrust of an employee by the employer cannot of itself be a sufficient reason to decline reinstatement, otherwise no employee would ever be reinstated where the employer believed or suspected the employee had engaged in misconduct.
   
2. Metro was a large employer and there were many roles within it that Ms Singh could perform at different locations so that the element of trust and confidence was of diminished importance.

Read More»

Gun mistake not grounds for summary dismissal

An Australian champion clay shooter, who had Senator David Leyonhjelm as his support person at the meeting to discuss his future employment was found to have been fairly dismissed but entitled to notice: Waters v Goodyear Australia Pty Limited [2016] FWC 1991.

Mr Waters breached a number of his employers’ policies when he acquiesced in a person whom he was mentoring in clay shooting bringing a gun into the vicinity of his workplace.

After a comprehensive investigation, the employer found that Mr Waters’ actions constituted serious misconduct.

Whilst Commissioner Cambridge agreed that Mr Waters had breached the trust and confidence inherent in the employment relationship to a degree to warrant dismissal he was not satisfied that Mr Waters had set out deliberately to do so in the incident giving rise to his dismissal.

As his employment contract provided for four weeks notice, Mr Waters was awarded compensation for that period.

The case also suggests that the way in which a support person acts at a meeting can affect a finding on the degree to which the employment relationship has broken down and cannot be retrieved.

Read More»

Don't wait until it's too late!

If you have been dismissed from your employment, you only have 21 days from the day your dismissal takes effect to file an unfair dismissal or general protections application with the Fair Work Commission.

 

The Commission will accept out-of-time applications only in exceptional circumstances and these can be difficult to prove. In the recent case of Martin v LJ Hooker Colleroy, the Applicant filed his application nine days past the lodgement date. He provided several different reasons all contributing to his late filing time, including:

 

• The pressure he suffered at work while employed;
• The time consumed searching for alternate employment;
• Needing to care for his ill father;
• Spending time with his wife and children;
• The difficulty of meeting with and engaging a lawyer;
• The time taken calculating his claim and back pay entitlements; and
• The interruption of the Easter holidays.

None of these reasons were accepted, even collectively, as falling within the definition of 'exceptional circumstances' as required under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

 

As a result, the application was rejected by the Fair Work Commission and the applicant was denied the opportunity to have his matter heard and dealt with on its merits.

 

Don't make the same mistake - make sure you file your application within 21 days of your dismissal taking effect! Contact the Workplace Relations team at Nevett Ford on 9614 7111 to ensure your application is drafted and filed quickly, efficiently and always before the due date!

Read More»

Double Jeopardy – Can you fire an employee twice?

The Fair Work Commission recently heard a case where an employer dismissed  an employee and then summarily dismissed him again while the employee was working out his notice period.


Initially, the Employer dismissed the employee due to his poor performance and failure to meet targets. The employee was then required to work out his notice period.


Whilst the employee was working out his notice period, it was discovered that he had emailed numerous documents, including confidential information, to his personal email account. As a consequence, he was summarily dismissed, which meant he did not have to work out the remainder of his notice.


The Commission found that a business can only dismiss an employee once. As the employee had already been dismissed, the employer could not justify summary dismissal based on the actions of the employee after termination.


Despite the fact that the actions of the employee after termination contravened the Privacy Act, the business failed to dismiss the employee in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).


Although the Commission took into consideration the employee's conduct after termination in  its decision, it determined that the employee was owed financial compensation for his unfair dismissal.


To protect your business and insure yourself against avoidable unfair dismissal claims, speak to one of Nevett Ford’s workplace relations team members on (03) 9614 7111 about the right way to terminate an employee for misconduct and serious misconduct.

Read More»

Notice would have made dismissal valid

Moskou v Specialist Diagnostic Services Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 8608 is an example of where summary dismissal for what occurred was deemed harsh but dismissal with notice would have been deemed fair.  A courier driver, who was suffering from gastroenteritis, defecated in a client’s carpark and failed to clean up properly or report the incident to his manager.  Commissioner Cribb decided the actions constituted misconduct but not serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal and ordered compensation of one week’s pay in lieu of notice

Read More»

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck… Is it a duck?

In December last year, the High Court of Australia handed down judgment in the matter of Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Holdings Pty Ltd.

Quest Serviced Apartments (“Quest”) employed two housekeepers over several years. It then entered into a contract with Contracting Solutions whereby the two women would become independent contractors engaged by Contracting Solutions, though they continued to work for Quest and performed the same roles.

This arrangement was effectively sham contracting, which is prohibited under Commonwealth legislation.

Section 357 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) restrains an employer from representing to an individual that they are working as an independent contractor when they are working as an employee.

As a result of its sham contracting, Quest now faces pecuniary penalties, which can be as high as $54,000 per breach for a corporation. 

So how do you know if your employees are genuinely employees or independent contractors? There is no hard and fast rule and it can often depend on the individual circumstances of the situation.

There are several indicators to consider when determining the nature of your employment relationship, such as how the worker is paid, who makes the taxation payments and whether the worker is a representative of the business.

The entire arrangement will need to be considered to determine the nature of the working relationship.

If you are unsure whether your workers are employees or independent contractors, speak to one of the Workplace Relations team at Nevett Ford on (03) 9614 7111.

Read More»

Employer penalised for deducting monies from wages

Late last month, a Victorian cleaning business learned that deducting or withholding monies from employees is not permitted except in very specific circumstances.


Oz Staff Career Services Pty Ltd employed 102 casual cleaners pursuant to the Cleaning Services Award 2010. The employer deducted monies from its employees’ pay for meals without authorisation on three occasions over two months.


After conducting an audit of the business, the Fair Work Ombudsman took legal proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court against the company and its chief executive officer. It was found that the employer contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).


Under the Act, employer deductions are prohibited, unless the employee has provided written consent.  The employee must expressly agree to reimburse the employer for any costs to be deducted from any final termination payment and must specify the amount of the deduction. This authorisation can be withdrawn in writing at any time.


A failure to comply with these requirements may breach your obligations as an employer under the Act, leaving you liable to civil penalties of up to $61,000 per breach.


If you believe you are entitled to recover monies from employees for overpayments or permitted deductions, contact the Workplace Relations team to Nevett Ford on (03) 9614 7111 to ensure that you comply with your requirements as an employer and avoid the risk of litigation and penalties.

Read More»

Labour Hire Employee dodges the short end of the candy stick

Labour hire companies operate to connect potential employees to businesses of a particular industry that matches their skillset and attributes. Suitability is attained when the attributes of an employee overlap with the operational needs of the business, known as the host employer.

However, the nature of the relationship between employee and labour hire company, in the presence of the third party host employer, can pose legal concerns and implications for the parties involved.

Recently this situation arose in a case before the Fair Work Commission. Labour hire company Adecco Industries found itself liable for the unfair dismissal of an employee who was dismissed by Nestle, the host employer. It is not in dispute that this employee was treated unfairly; she was not offered the rights that the Fair Work Act (1999) affords an employee faced with the prospect of termination.

Despite Adecco’s assertion that the employee remained contracted by Adecco and was merely removed from Nestle, the Fair Work Commission determined that the labour hire relationship cannot be use to abrogate the responsibility to ensure fair treatment of employees.

It was deemed that if the dismissal of an employee would be considered unfair if executed by the Labour Hire company directly, then such a dismissal does not cease to be unfair if executed by a third party to the employment relationship. If such a determination were not reached, it would be effectively permissible for labour hire companies to contract out of the legislative provisions regarding unfair dismissals.

Despite the involvement of host company Nestle, the Fair Work Commission requires that Adecco remedy the employee for the unfair dismissal.

Whilst the employee ultimately enjoys compensation candy, it seems that Adecco must endure the cane. 

To discover the best way to insure and protect your business against such penalties when terminating an employee, speak to one of Nevett Ford’s workplace relations team members on (03) 9614 7111.

Read More»

Don’t take it so seriously – the difference between misconduct and serious misconduct

A pool supplies business in Sydney summarily dismissed its general manager for going “behind their back”, making disparaging comments about the business and “betraying the business”. Entram Pty Ltd accused its general manager of preventing a sale of business and breaching his implied duties to act in good faith.

Judge Shenagh Barnes of the Federal Circuit Court accepted the employee’s conduct amounted to misconduct; however, it was not found to warrant serious misconduct and, therefore, summary dismissal.

As a consequence, the employer was ordered to pay $30,283 in damages for failing to provide the employee with notice of termination.

For an employer, the key difference between terminating an employee for misconduct versus serious misconduct will be the provision of notice.

An employee who commits serious misconduct can be terminated on the spot and the employer will not be required to provide notice of termination.

An employee who is dismissed for misconduct must be provided notice of termination. They can be directed to work out their notice period or paid in lieu of notice, at the employer discretion.

As demonstrated by Jeavons v Entram Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 3457 the consequences of summarily dismissing an employee for misconduct can be significant. Although the employee was terminated in June 2012, a judgment was not handed down until December 2015, meaning the business was in legal limbo for three and a half years. 

To protect your business and insure yourself against such penalties, speak to one of Nevett Ford’s workplace relations team members on (03) 9614 7111 about the right way to terminate an employee for misconduct and serious conduct.

Read More»

Redundant one day and offered alternate employment the next equals no redundancy pay

DRW Investments Pty Ltd v Richards [2016] FWC 461 is a decision in which a large transport company having lost a major hauling contract found work for affected drivers with the new contractor.


The affected drivers argued that they had been made redundant by their old employer entitling them to redundancy payments but the old employer disagreed.


Commissioner Sams found that the drivers had resigned from their old employer to take up work with the new employer. As a result their employment had not been terminated at the initiative of the old employer so as to bring into operation section 119 of the Fair Work Act.


Commissioner Sams also commented that redundancy pay was for a specific beneficial purpose and not meant as a windfall where employees, whilst being made redundant one day are offered and accept suitable alternative employment the next day.

Read More»

Swearing in the workplace

A recent decision of Horner v Kailis Bros Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 145 concerns a dismissal of an employee for swearing.

In this case the employer got it right and was able to successfully oppose an application for compensation and/or reinstatement for unfair dismissal by the foul mouthed employee.

The employee had been disciplined previously for swearing. The Commission found there was a valid reason for his dismissal because the employee did more than swear but also abused his supervisor.

The employer wisely asked the employee for his version of events as to what happened when the verbal altercation with his supervisor took place. He was told that his job could be under threat. Therefore the Commission was satisfied that the employee had an opportunity to respond and put his version of the events, and that he was aware of the reason why his job could be under threat.

The case is a good example of an employee’s conduct that justified dismissal.

Employers need to make sure they deal with conduct issues properly and employees are afforded procedural fairness, that is given the opportunity to put their version of events.

In dealing with conduct issues we recommend that all employers obtain advice from Human Resource Management specialists or a lawyer who is an Accredited Specialist in Workplace Relations before dismissing a worker for conduct issues.

Nevett Ford Lawyers provide advice on all aspects of Employment Law.

Read More»

Dismissal during notice period deemed unfair

Brunner v Amalgamated Marketing Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 7837 was a case where a sales executive resigned on a Friday giving three week’s notice and on the following Monday, when she was absent on sick leave, the employer asked her to return the office keys, mobile phone and her uniform, which she did. He then paid the employee a week’s notice because he formed the view the employee having resigned did not intend to return to work.

Senior Deputy President Richards found that the effect of the request was to deprive the employee of her tools of trade preventing her from working the notice period. He awarded the employee compensation for the balance of the notice period being two weeks because there was no valid reason for dismissing the employee and preventing her from working the notice period.

Read More»

Workers are Employees not Contractors

Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Holdings Pty Ltd and others [2015] HCA 45 demonstrates that on arrangement where an enterprise engaged the services of cleaners through a labour hire company and represented to the cleaners that they were contractors not employees, is contrary to section 357 of the Fair Work Act 2009 as sham contracting.

Previously, sham contracting was thought to apply only to misrepresentations the employer made to the worker and not to extend to misrepresentations by a third party, which uses the workers’ services, to the workers status as employee.

Read More»

Can an employer change an employee's work roster?

Being penalised for unpredictability is not necessarily adverse action.

CFMEU v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 76 demonstrates that it is not unlawful for an employer to change an employee’s work roster where there is unpredictability in the employee maintaining the original roster even where that unpredictability arises from the employee taking carer’s or annual leave.

Read More»

THE FAIR WORK COMMISSION AND WORK PLACE BULLYING

 
It is now just over two years since the Fair Work Commission was granted the ability to make stop bullying orders under the Fair Work Act 2009.

Fair Work Commission statistics for 2014 – 2015 show that the Commission:

• received over 150,000 unique website hits regarding anti-bullying;
• dealt with over 6,300 telephone enquiries;
• processed 694 applications; and
• finalised 60 applications by a formal decision.

In Bowker v DP World Melbourne Limited [2015] FWC 7312, Deputy President Gostencnik made extensive orders to facilitate the return to work of three dock workers he found had been bullied by colleagues and union representatives and to monitor the situation to prevent further bullying occurring. 

Read More»