News Feed
Principles for interpreting enterprise agreements updated by FWC
Background Recently, in an appeal lodged by the AMWU (the Union), a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission), which was headed by the President, was asked to consider whether employees covered by the Berri Pty Ltd (Leeton) Enterprise Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement) were entitled to be paid a laundry allowance for work clothing provided by the employer. In the process, the Commission updated the principles it established for interpreting enterprise agreements under the leading Golden Cockerel decision. The Agreement provided a rate for laundry allowance in a schedule. However, the Agreement itself did not provide that laundry allowance would be payable. In fact, no laundry allowance had been paid under the Agreement. First instance At first instance, Lawrence DP determined that the clause was ambiguous. The ambiguity arose from the failure...
9 June 2017Employer can direct employees to attend medical assessments when on sick leave
Facts The employee alleged he was dismissed because he suffered a disability and exercised a workplace right to take sick leave due to his disability. The employer, in this case the Fair Work Ombudsman, alleged that the employee was dismissed because he was unable to perform his duties on account of failing to attend a medical appointment scheduled for 27 November 2014. The employee was absent from work from 24 March to 21 September 2014, 7 October 2014 to 22 December 2014 and then from 24 December 2014 until he was dismissed on 9 January 2015. The employer required the employee to attend six medical assessments between 22 July 2014 and 27 November 2014 to assess his medical condition and to assist his return to work. The employee failed to attend the first five medical appointments at all and attended the sixth so late that it was cancelled. The employee was told by his doctor not to communicate with his employer. However, ...
23 March 2017Company ordered to pay CIO’s retention bonus
Introduction In a recent Victorian Court of Appeal decision, an employer was ordered to pay almost half a million dollars in unpaid entitlements to an employee following a restructure. Factual Background Mr Stevens entered into an arrangement with the employer on October 2011 which entitled him to shares in the company. The share value was equivalent to 12 months’ salary. Under the arrangement Mr Stevens accrued the shares if he remained in continuous employment with the company from 1 September 2011 to 1 September 2013 (the retention bonus) or he was made redundant. In August 2012, new management took over the employer. The new Managing Director and CEO, Mr Bruce Dixon, had several meetings with Mr Stevens in relation to a restructure of his role and the possibility of his role being made redundant. Much of what transpired during those discussions were disputed during trial. The key contention made b...
14 February 2017