Unfair dismissal; Conflict resolution; Adverse action claims; rights and responsibilities; Accessorial liability
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 Pere v Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service [2017] 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.
Simon Billing of Corrs Chambers Westgarth writes about three recent decisions of the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which serve as a reminder to employers that “despite there being a valid reason for the dismissal of an employee, a range of other factors can lead to a finding of unfairness”. Read seven important questions to carefully consider.
A recent case in the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission serves as an important reminder of the need that a written anti-discrimination policy must also be communicated, implemented and enforced. “It is not enough that it merely exists,” writes Tim Lethbridge.