As the traditional ‘workplace’ model continues to evolve – think, remote and work from home employees – employers need to ensure all employment relationships are properly documented and understood as we discuss in Lawful but not Reasonable.
The new year is often an exciting time for a business when it comes to recruitment. During this process, employers need to ensure they do not expose themselves to litigation following representations made by them, or made on their behalf, that are misleading and deceptive and later relied upon by prospective employees in the recruitment process. Two recent cases in the Federal Circuit Court look at the ramifications of such situations.
Employers seeking to address issues of equality and justice within their own companies should be aware of that most Federal and State anti-discrimination laws in Australia provide exemptions for those who implement “special measures” in the recruitment process to rectify previous disadvantage to a particular group and promote substantive equality.
A recent decision from the Fair Work Commission highlights to employers what will be considered a “reasonable and lawful” direction to employees. The case is also a reminder to properly document individual working arrangements – especially if the arrangement is intended to be temporary or subject to certain conditions.
Uber has been at the centre of many debates about the gig economy and the characterisation of workers as either employees or independent contractors. We take a look at a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission in which it considered whether an Uber driver could be an employee for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009 and highlight why the distinction between the two types of workers is so important.
An employer who relied on their zero-tolerance alcohol policy when dismissing an employee who tried to access the workplace out-of-hours, under the influence of alcohol, has successfully defended the dismissal before the Fair Work Commission.
In a recent decision of the Victorian County Court, a university has been ordered to pay $275,000 in damages to a security control room operator who worked on the campus. This case reminds employers to consider how weather conditions or other environmental changes may impact on their premises or workplace and the importance of conducting regular risk and safety audits.
Ending the employment relationship can sometimes be difficult and pursuing the return of employer property, like used uniform items – particularly those with company branding, can seem like a lot of effort for something minor. However, branded uniforms and clothing inappropriately worn/used post-employment can lead to brand and reputation damage. In this article we suggest steps employers can take to ensure that employee uniforms and clothing are returned at the end of the employment relationship.
If there is a particular topic you would like covered we would love to hear from you so please email us at email@example.com.
Sydney FC's W-league in the Grand Final
We are thrilled to see the Sydney FC W-league team in the Grand Final against Melbourne City this weekend and wish them all the best for the big day!
Our Managing Workplace Behaviour webinar is fast approaching. There is now only a limited number of spaces left for the session on 21 February at 10 am.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Need a laugh...
Q: What do you call two birds in love? A: Tweethearts!
Q: What did one oar say to the other? A: "Can I interest you in a little row-mance?"
Should you require any further information or assistance, please contact our Director Shane Koelmeyer on (02) 9256 7500 or via email on firstname.lastname@example.org.
Information provided in this update 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 update, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
In order to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, an employee must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. One of the instances in which an employee may be “dismissed” from their employment is if they were forced to resign because of the employer’s conduct or course of conduct.
Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.