Resources: Blogs

Court in the middle

Blogs
|

Changes proposed for the NSW Industrial Relations Commission

The NSW Government has proposed changes to the exercise of functions by the NSW Industrial Relations Commission (NSW IRC) in response to a marked decreased workload level.

The NSW Government has proposed changes to the exercise of functions by the NSW Industrial Relations Commission (NSW IRC) in response to a marked decreased workload level.

The Commission is primarily responsible for the conciliation and determination of unfair dismissal applications, industrial disputes and the approval of awards and enterprise agreements in the NSW public sector, including NSW local councils.

It is intended that the judicial functions of the NSW IRC (currently exercised by the Industrial Court) be transferred to the NSW Supreme Court and to be exercised by Judges within the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court. Part of the proposal will see President Walton the current sole Judge of the Industrial Court, be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

The NSW Government has claimed that this will allow matters to be allocated more efficiently and with greater diversity as there would be a larger number of judges who could be allocated a matter.

The workload of the Industrial Court was highlighted to have decreased in the ten years from 766 matters commenced in 2005 to just 35 matters in 2015. The reduction in workload was claimed to be due to changes in the industrial relations system, including the introduction of the national workplace relations system, and changes which saw work health and safety prosecutions transferred to the NSW District Court in 2010.

At present, there is no proposal to change the non-judicial functions of the NSW IRC (as performed by the Commission). However, it is intended that a new Chief Commissioner be appointed to be the head of the NSW IRC, increasing the number of Commissioners up from four to five Commissioners.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

Fair Work Commission critical of investigation process despite the employer’s valid reason for dismissal

Less is more

Employers often see the disciplinary process as an opportunity to raise every single indiscretion by an employee – even though the issues occurred in the past or are minor in nature when compared to other misconduct. However, this approach can weaken the employer’s position, rather than strengthen the decision to dismiss.

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation June 2020

Cases and Legislation June 2020 NEWS ALERTS NSW Work Health Safety Legislation Amendments The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) was recently amended giving effect to some of the recommendations of the 2018 national review of the modern WHS Act. ...

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation February 2020

Cases and Legislation February 2020 Post-Employment Conduct “Ex-employee fined for contempt after breaching Court undertakings" Maxilift Australia Pty Ltd v Donnelly [2020] SASC 8 Executive summary A former sales manager has been fined $7,115 and found in contempt of...

Read more...

The “practical reality” test confirms that an individual was an employee and not an independent contractor

Game over

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was amended last year to introduce a new test for determining if an individual is an employee or an independent contractor.

Read more...

No “cause-and-effect” relationship between employee’s request for flexible working arrangements and their parental responsibilities

Request denied

An employee will only be eligible to request flexible working arrangements if their request for changed arrangements is “because of” one of the prescribed circumstances set out under section 65(1A) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Employee who refused drug and alcohol test unfairly dismissed

Guilty by association

Employees have a duty to comply with their employer’s lawful and reasonable directions made under certain workplace policies. However, if an employer fails to apply their policies fairly, then the direction may be found not to be reasonable or lawful and any subsequent disciplinary action for non-compliance with that direction may found to be unfair.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.

Subscribe

* indicates required