In a majority decision, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has rejected a claim of unlawful adverse action brought by an employee who was summarily dismissed for improperly claiming sick leave – notwithstanding that, in fact, the sick leave was justified. The decision emphasises the centrality of the employer’s subjective reason for the action as the basis for determining liability.
In a startling revelation, it has recently become public knowledge that a Fair Work Commission Vice President had covertly recorded telephone conversations between himself and the President of the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission is Australia’s national workplace relations tribunal. The Vice President said that he did so to protect his own lawful interests. Whilst this article will not explain why the Vice President considered it necessary to protect his own lawful interests by secretly recording conversations in his workplace because the recent public coverage, might encourage copy-cat conduct by employees, it is timely to review the Australian legal framework in relation to the regulation and use of surveillance devices, such as listening devices in the workplace or elsewhere. The recent public coverage might encourage copy-cat conduct by employees.
Last week, the Ontario Medical Association (“OMA”) challenged the constitutionality of the provincial government’s decision to cut fees for doctors. The OMA is relying on section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) which expressly protects freedom of association – a right most often invoked by trade
This article was written by Douglas de Jager , an associate at Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa
Section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa states that “[n]o person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status…” and that “[n]ational
You can expect a response within 24 hours during normal business hours:
8am-5pm Pacific time, Monday-Friday, excluding major US holidays.
Fastest information available via our community portal.
Fast, immediate answers to most questions and crowd-sourced reporting of platform issues in our member-only community.
Access the community when you log into your blog
Numerous federal, state, and local laws in the United States prohibit employers from making employment decisions based on an employee’s or job applicant’s sex and thus protecting employees from being discriminated against based on their “sex”. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the principle federal law which prohibits discrimination based on
Australian labour law is primarily governed by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).
A central feature of the Australian labour law system is collective enterprise-based bargaining between employers and their employees, who are usually represented by trade unions.
Recently, the Australian Federal Government has sought to introduce a number of changes to the bargaining system under the FW Act. The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 proposes important changes to:
This article provides a brief overview of these two proposed key changes, which are particularly relevant for companies operating in the Australian resources sector.