Grazia Pecoraro of Perspective Hive Diversity Consulting shares her insights into the important business impacts of inclusive language. Read here…
Read why the Full Bench upheld Bupa’s right to change the rosters of over 2,200 part time employees across its 29 aged care homes in NSW in this article by Calum Cook – Bupa A&NZ’s Deputy General Counsel – Care Services, Employment and Litigation.
An employer has been cleared of adverse action claims because it was able to demonstrate that its decision not to employ a candidate was based on medical evidence relevant to whether the candidate could perform the inherent requirements of the particular position.
An employee was awarded a total of $625,345, being $210,000 for pain and suffering and $415,345 for pecuniary loss, due to the lack of duty of care from the Department of Health Victoria as her employer. Read how the relationship was causing the employee “extreme stress and she was at risk of psychiatric harm”.
In the Paul Williams and Ors v Staples Pty Ltd case, “the FWC ordered the applicants be reinstated in light of the available redeployment opportunities, the fact that there was no evidence of any deterioration in the employment relationship and the applicants’ unblemished work records.”
In Boguslaw Bienias v Iplex Pipelines Australia, a team leader failed to show up to work for a fortnight. During his absence, Iplex attempted to contact the employee by phone, in writing, and even arranged for the police to conduct a welfare check on him. The employee did not respond. As a result of this case’s decision, the FWC announced that it will review abandonment clauses in all modern awards.
Post employment restraints is a buzzing topic at the moment and in this short article by Warwick Ryan of Swaab Attorneys, he provides a few tips for employers on how to review this issue in their own workplaces. “Without effective post-employment restraint clauses – who really owns the business?” he asks.
In Pere v Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service  QDC 2, Mr Pere, a Fire Safety and Security Officer at the Gladstone Hospital, presented to work in what appeared to be an intoxicated state. He was requested to attend the emergency department of the Hospital to undertake blood and urine tests. The results of the tests established a four times the legal limit.
Jim Roberts of Hesketh Henry reminds us in this article that “while some incidents might be so flagrant or reckless and easily evidenced (for example by security footage) that they appear to justify termination on the spot, it is important that the alleged behaviour is properly investigated and a lawful process is carried out.”
“Is swearing ever appropriate in the workplace?” asks Simon Billing of Corrs Chambers Westgarth in this excellently detailed article. “Six recent cases suggest that the line between what is and is not appropriate is becoming increasingly blurred.” Read more about these specific cases here and each outcome.