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.
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.
Further movement in the Heavy Vehicle National Laws (HVNL) has taken place with the Heavy Vehicle National Law Amendment Bill 2015 being passed by the Queensland Parliament on 16 September 2015.
In previous posts we have examined the “workplace rights” limb of the adverse action jurisdiction in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) – specifically the protection given in relation complaints. The issue has been considered again in a recent decision of the Federal Circuit Court.
In an earlier post, we looked at the Ramsey litigation, which involved consideration of the complex legal tests that apply when determining whether a person who performs work for a company is an employee or contractor.
The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (Commission)[1] recently reaffirmed that employers who issue a notice of representational rights (Notice) must ensure the Notice complies with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act).
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has handed down its first formal decision in relation to an anti-bullying order. This is only the second case since the introduction of the anti-bullying laws where orders have been granted under section 789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). This is the first decision to provide us with more guidance in relation to when the FWC will grant anti- bullying orders.
A recent decision of Judge Cameron of the Federal Circuit Court (the Court), in the matter of Fair Work Ombudsman v F.L. Press Pty Ltd & Anor[1] (FL Press), has highlighted a potential discrepancy between the approach of the Court and that of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to redundancy pay entitlements under the National Employment Standards (NES) where an employee’s position becomes redundant and the employee consents to a transfer to a different position with the same employer.
In Australia, complex legal tests apply when determining whether a person who performs work for a company is an employee or contractor, and in determining whether the company receiving the benefit of the work (or an interposed entity such as a labour hire agency) should be regarded as the employer.
These tests, and their consequences, are illustrated in the Ramsey litigation.