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

News Feed

'Ticking all the boxes' critical in gaining enterprise agreement approval

Recent Fair Work Commission decisions re-affirm that if you don’t 'tick all the boxes' associated with pre-approval requirements, it may result in enterprise agreement not being approved. The first decision Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) before employees are asked to vote in favour of or against the proposed enterprise agreement, employers are required to ensure that employees have 7 clear days access to the proposed enterprise agreement and any incorporated material (the Access Period). In this matter, the employer forwarded an email to eligible employees on 11 December 2013 advising them that: the Access Period had commenced at 10.30am that day; and voting for the proposed enterprise agreement would commence at 11.00am on 18 December 2013. The Fair Work Commission found in determining the access period, there must be 7 clear, entire days. Part days cannot be included. Accordingly, the appropriate date for the vote to commence i...

28 July 2014

Sham contracting = high risk exposure. Court warns "think twice"

The Federal Circuit Court (the Court) has again reaffirmed that harsh penalties will apply to employers found to engage employees under sham contracting arrangements. Background At the heart of the matter were 10 individuals engaged by Linkhill Pty Ltd (Linkhill) to undertake construction work on sites located in Melbourne. In the main, when the individuals were engaged, they were advised they were independent contractors and not employees and that they were required to obtain an ABN to commence work. In the majority of cases the individuals were: not required to provide their own tools as these were provided by Linkhill; told by Linkhill when they were required to work, when their break times would be and their pay rate; worked an average of 40 hours per week; undertook work as directed by and supervised by Linkhill; required to provide Linkhill of notice of any intended leave and did not supply a replacement to undertake their work ...

28 July 2014

Court scathing of employer for delaying stay application of reinstatement order

The Technical and Further Education Commission (the Employer) was refused a stay of a Fair Work Commission (the Commission) order when it applied to the Federal Court (the Court) three business days after reinstatement was to take effect. Background The Employer was ordered to reinstate a dismissed employee by 25 June 2014, after the Commission found the employee had been unfairly dismissed. The Employer had previously unsuccessfully argued in the Commission, that the employee had been made genuinely redundant and could not access the unfair dismissal laws. The Employer lodged an application with the Court staying the Commission's order, three business days after it was required to reinstate the employee.  The Employer had been paying the employee's salary but did not allow her to attend work to perform her duties.  There was correspondence between the parties following the Comm...

21 July 2014