News Feed
A falsified medical certificate – does this warrant dismissal?
Facts This case concerned an unfair dismissal claim. After the employee’s dismissal, when looking at the former employee’s work emails, the employer realised the employee had a job interview for a date when she had produced a medical certificate to use paid personal leave for her absence that day. Through further investigation, ‘the medical certificate was found to have been falsified’ by the former employee. At first instance, it was decided that the former employee was unfairly dismissed notwithstanding the concession by the employee that she did in fact falsify the medical certificate. The employer appealed that decision. In the appeal, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission ultimately refused the employer permission to appeal but made some important observations in relation to falsified medical certificates. In its decision, the Full Bench explained that the past case law relied upon by the employer did &ls...
30 December 2019The importance of an employer keeping records of hours worked
This case is an appeal heard by the Federal Court. The matter involved two employees who argued that they had worked ‘long hours’ for which they were not paid. The employer could not provide records of the hours worked by the employees. By contrast, the employees provided evidence of the hours which were alleged to have been worked ‘in handwritten schedules’ which they claimed were based on contemporaneous records they had kept. The Federal Court observed that the requirement on an employer to keep records ‘are an important part of the protections afforded by the Fair Work Act’ on employees. Section 557C of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) In this case, a key issue was the implications of s.557C of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Briefly stated, that section provides that when an employee alleges that an employer breached certain provisions of the legislation or an industrial instru...
4 October 2019Is there a ‘genuine redundancy’? Distinguishing ‘duties’ versus ‘the job’
An employee’s unfair dismissal claim was unsuccessful as the Fair Work Commission found there was a ‘genuine redundancy’. Job not required In determining whether there was a ‘genuine redundancy’ the Commission first considered whether ‘…the person’s employer no longer required the person’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise…’. The employer asserted the redundancy was necessary due to its new product sales having fallen by 15% and its product servicing revenue by 15.7%. It was further contended by the employer that it considered the ‘commercial challenges at hand’ and the ‘sustainability of the business’ in deciding to undertake a reorganisation of the employee’s duties which were distributed amongst several other employees. The employer did not deny that some of these duties wer...
15 July 2019