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

News Feed

How specific is specific when it comes to a notice of intention to take industrial action?

Notice to take industrial action United Voice (UV) and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) gave separate notices to the employer, National Patient Transport Pty Ltd (NPT) of their intentions to take protected industrial action. The notices were identical except in relation to the name of the union. The UV notice was in the following terms: “The Ambulance Section of United Voice hereby gives three working days' notice pursuant to Section 414 of the Fair Work Act of the following protected industrial action to be taken by employees of NPT, who are Transport Officers, Ambulance Transport Attendants, Clinical Instructors and Client Service Officers and who are members of United Voice, commencing from the first shift on Friday 13 April 2018: • The wearing of campaign related materials, such as t-shirts, badges, and stickers, and stopping work for up to ten minutes duration on each occasion to explain the c...

20 April 2018

Award covered high paid employee? Oxymoron?

The Fair Work Commission has reaffirmed the principle that in determining whether the job performed by an employee falls within an award classification, the test to be used is the “principal purpose test”. This involves an examination of the nature of the work and the circumstances in which the employee is employed to determine the principal purpose for which the employee is employed. In a recent decision, the Commission found that a real estate employee with the title “Director of Asset Management” was covered by the Real Estate Industry Award 2010 under the classification “Property Management Supervisor”. It was accepted by the employer that whilst the employee performed all of the indicative tasks of a Property Management Supervisor as listed in the Award, the employee performed additional higher-level duties including management of the trust bank account and negotiating management fees with clients for leasing arrangements. Th...

10 April 2018

“No work as directed, no pay” must be reasonable

The Fair Work Commission has recently affirmed the ability for an employer to not provide pay to an employee who does not undertake work as directed. This case involves a unique set of circumstances. The employee’s drivers’ licence was suspended, for three weeks, due to his failure to pay registration. The employer had a policy that required all employees who performed driving duties on the employer’s private property to hold a valid drivers’ licence.  As a result of his licence suspension, the employer put the employee on an unpaid stand down on the basis that he was unable to perform his driving work on the employer’s private property as directed. The Commission in its capacity as a private arbitrator considered whether the enterprise agreement modified the common law right of “no work as directed, no pay” – finding that it did not. The Commission held however that the common law right of an employer to refuse to pay an ...

23 March 2018