News Feed
The terms and effect of an EA not properly explained
Further to our previous article, two recent decisions of the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission have again shown that an employer’s failure to properly comply with the requirement in s.180(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009, relating to the employer taking all reasonable steps to explain an EA and its effect to employees, has proved fatal to the approval of the EA. In Australian Workers’ Union v Professional Traffic Solutions Pty Ltd, the statutory declaration filed with the application to approve the EA contained an answer that stated: “The agreement was explained to all relevant employees at the time that it was handed out, on 24 May 2017. All employees were encouraged to ask questions, and to get back to company management if they did not understand any of the content.” The Commission agreed with the relevant union that there had been a failure by the employer to take all reasonable steps to explain the terms of the EA and their...
16 November 2018FWC Annual Report 2017-18
The Fair Work Commission’s 2017-18 Annual Report includes several noteworthy points summarised in the table below: Types of applications lodged with the Fair Work Commission Median time between lodgement and conciliation for unfair dismissal applications = 27 days Median time taken for agreement approval without undertakings = 32 days Total number of applications lodged with the Commission = 31,554 ↓ 5% General protections claims involving dismissal = 4,117 ↑ 388 claims Unfair dismissal applications = 13,595 [This decrease suggests that employees prefer general protections claims due to the availability of uncapped damages] ↓ 540 cla...
19 October 2018Dishonesty can be a valid reason for dismissal, even if not the original reason
The Fair Work Commission has found that an employee’s dishonesty during the “recruitment, employment and investigation process” was misconduct constituting a valid reason for the dismissal, despite dishonesty not being the original reason given by the employer for the termination of the employment. Mr Duggan commenced his employment as a firefighter in 2015 and was involved in NCAT proceedings in relation to allegations of indecent and sexual assault during his former occupation as an osteopath in 2009 and 2010. The employer’s initial reason for the dismissal was that because of the NCAT’s decision, the employee “was not a fit and proper person with the necessary level of personal integrity required of a firefighter”. The Commission found that this was not a valid reason for the dismissal in this case. However, it was ultimately held that the employee was dishonest regarding his response to “questions during his formal job ...
31 August 2018