National Workplace Lawyers : Employment Lawyer : OHS Lawyer : Unfair Dismissal : Discrimination Lawyer : Industrial Lawyer

News Feed

Dishonesty 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

1 July 2018 changes to the unfair dismissal remuneration cap

Introduction New rates, thresholds and other changes in the employment arena commenced from 1 July 2018. The following article briefly summarises the main amendments that employers should be aware of. Unfair dismissal threshold (high income threshold) and maximum compensation cap The high-income threshold increased from the previous $142,000 to $145,400 from 1 July 2018. This means employees whose annual rate of earnings is $145,400 (which excludes statutory superannuation) or more and who are not covered by an award or enterprise agreement, are unable to pursue an unfair dismissal application. The change also means that the maximum compensation that can be awarded for an unfair dismissal claim increased from $71,000 to $72,700. National minimum wage The national minimum wage has increased to $719.20 per week or $18.93 per hour (calculated on the basis of a 38 hour week for a full time e...

28 June 2018

The pitfalls of not properly explaining the terms of a proposed EA

As a follow up to our earlier article, the Full Court of the Federal Court has confirmed, on appeal, that the requirement to “taken all reasonable steps to explain the terms of the agreement and the effect of those terms” to employees who will be covered by the enterprise agreement means more than simply reading out the terms of the agreement. The facts of the matter involve a labour hire provider asking three employees to approve an enterprise agreement that had the potential to cover a broad scope of employees. The BOOT analysis for the agreement required the agreement to be compared to 11 different awards across a range of industries, from black coal mining to the hospitality industry. By the time proceedings were brought in the Federal Court by the CFMEU, some one and a half years after the agreement was first approved by the Commission, the agreement covered over 300 employees across a range of industries. On appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Court h...

4 June 2018