Bathurst’s Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) crews were called out to businesses as the freezing temperatures caused pipes to burst. FRNSW Station Officer Sandy Collins said the first call came at 10.27am on Saturday to burst pipes at St Catherine’s Aged Care Facility.
July 3, 2017
BK Chemists has dished out a (s.394 – application for unfair dismissal remedy) bitter pill to an ex-employee (Trevisan).
July 3, 2017
SA Health has uncovered at least two more deaths it failed to tell coroner Mark Johns about, admitting there is “more work needed” to ensure doctors meet a legal requirement to report cases. It follows revelations in February that the deaths of eight infants at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital were also not reported to the coroner’s office. Mr Johns had already blasted SA Health for withholding information on two stroke deaths at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
June 30, 2017
A nurse who argues traces of cocaine in her body were the result of sex with a “sweaty” user has won a relaxation of an order that she take drug tests. Despite finding Tara Seymour’s excuse “improbable”, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal agreed to markedly reduce the frequency of her drug testing.
June 30, 2017
National Prescribing Service is facing a s.372 (Application to deal with other contravention disputes) before Commissioner Johns in his Sydney chambers (McAllan).
June 30, 2017
About 110 registered Australian nurses and midwives are subjected to regular drug and alcohol testing by their national regulator. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia said fewer than 0.03% of 367,000 registered members were undergoing the strict, regular testing imposed when the board believes nurses and midwives need to be monitored for the safety of the public. The figures came as the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal relaxed the drug test order imposed on a Melbourne nurse who argued the traces of cocaine in her system were the result of sex with a man who was a drug-user.
June 30, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – incapacity – inherent requirements – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – s.5 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) – application for relief from unfair dismissal – applicant employed by respondent in intensive care unit for 17 years and held position of ICU Liaison Nurse – in November 2014, applicant received needle stick injury, resulting in three months off work – applicant returned to work following recovery through graduated return to work plan – in May 2015, applicant involved in car accident resulting in injuries that rendered her incapable of returning to work – applicant maintained contact with respondent to advise of her recovery progress – return to work co-ordinator unable to meet with respondent to discuss applicant’s return to work – in September 2016, applicant advised that no return to work program was available for her – applicant terminated from employment via letter dated 14 September 2016 – respondent submitted it had valid reason to dismiss applicant as she ‘had been absent from work for a significant period of time and that she remained unfit now and for an indefinite period to return to her pre-injury duties and hours’ – respondent’s decision to dismiss was based on TAC Certificate of Capacity stating applicant had ‘no capacity for employment’ from 12 September 2016 to 10 October 2016 and that it had not received any communication from TAC that applicant was capable of returning to her role – Commission held that as respondent made no inquiries into applicant’s ability to return to work at time it made decision to terminate her employment, it had no basis on which to conclude that applicant had ‘significant restrictions’ on ability to perform pre-injury job – held that evidence before Commission was that applicant could have returned to pre-injury duties on graduated return to work building up, over time, to normal hours of duty – held no valid reason for dismissal – held that, prima facie, respondent breached s.5 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 – held dismissal unfair – application granted – applicant sought reinstatement – reinstatement ordered. Maharaj v Northern Health
June 30, 2017
ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – ss.587, 739 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for Commission to deal with a dispute under Enterprise Agreement (Agreement) Dispute Settlement Procedure (‘DSP’) – applicant’s claim concerned alleged refusal of request for carers’ leave, transfer of work location and false allegations of unreasonable behaviour – respondent raised jurisdictional objection that claim could not be considered under DSP in Agreement – respondent submitted that matter be dismissed as application not validly made on following grounds – applicant did not follow DSP in Agreement – carers’ leave issue was resolved prior to application – transfer and bullying investigation were not matters arising under the Agreement or NES – relief sought was inconsistent with Agreement – applicant submitted she had complied with DSP under Agreement – applicant claimed she had been forced to resign – applicant sought reimbursement of lost wages and personal medical expenses of $9,642.00 and that respondent sign deed of release – respondent submitted that ‘lost wages’ and deed of release were not related to issues in dispute and Commission does not have power to deal with these claims – Commission noted valid s.739 dispute application requires dispute which can be properly identified and characterised – subject matter of dispute must be about ‘matters under Agreement or NES’ – parties must follow all DSP steps – Commission must have necessary power to order relief sought by party requesting relief – Schweppes Australia considered – Commission would not ordinarily order relief sought if no practical utility in doing so – Commission satisfied applicant did not correctly progress dispute through all requisite steps of DSP – applicant misunderstood Commission’s powers – no power for Commission to grant monetary payments or order respondent to sign deed of release – carers’ leave issue only matter that could be argued under Agreement or NES but Commission has no power to deal with a resolved dispute – Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with transfer or workplace investigation disputes as neither were matters arising from Agreement or NES – final DSP step not invoked by applicant meaning Commission barred from dealing with matter which had not progressively moved through each step of DSP – applicant resigned meaning no utility in taking action that would have no impact on employee who is no longer employed – Commission satisfied application cannot proceed under s.739 – found Commission had no jurisdiction to deal with dispute – Commission found application had no reasonable prospects of success – application dismissed. Tarasenko v Insurance Australia Group
