Life Without Barriers has a second matter (s.372 – Application to deal with other contravention disputes) alive at 10am (Troxell).
May 23, 2017
Life Without Barriers has a (s.739 – Application to deal with a dispute) being heard by Commissioner Booth in his Brisbane chambers at 2.30pm.
May 22, 2017
A s.185 (Enterprise agreement) application by Armest Pty Ltd T/A Miles Witt Partnership for its Mercy Community Services North Queensland – Nurses Enterprise Agreement 2016 has been approved by Commissioner Johns in Melbourne on 19 May 2017.
May 22, 2017
San Carlo Homes for the Aged & Alleva and Others have made a s/576(2)(a) (Promoting cooperative and productive workplace relations and preventing disputes) application. Commissioner Cribb will be on-site San Carlo Italian Aged Care, 970 Plenty Road, South Morang at 10am to hear the matter.
May 22, 2017
Bidgerdii Community Health Services is to defend a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) served on it by Vandenbrink in Newcastle.
May 22, 2017
A s.185 (Enterprise agreement) application by TasIVF Pty Ltd for its TasIVF Laboratory Staff Enterprise Agreement 2016 has been approved by Fair Work Commissioner Johns. The Health Services Union is the bargaining representative for the Agreement.
May 22, 2017
Tasmania’s hospital system has “decayed” over the last year, according to the state’s leading medical body. The Tasmanian branch of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) says it now has “no confidence” in the way Tasmania’s health system is being been managed. AMA president Stuart Day said the Tasmanian Health Service (THS) boss Dr David Alcorn has not delivered what is needed. “We believe that the CEO doesn’t have the skill set or the ability to implement the vision,” he said. “There has been a dismantling of the past internal structures, without something being put in that place that is functional.” Dr Day said the failures had safety implications.
May 22, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – costs – ss.394, 400A, 611 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant lodged application for unfair dismissal remedy in September 2016 (unfair dismissal application) – discontinued application in January 2017, six days before matter was listed to be heard – respondent made application for costs February 2017 – sought $10,332.00 costs on an indemnity basis – respondent submitted unfair dismissal application had no reasonable prospects of success because the Commission did not have jurisdiction to determine merits of application – claimed application was made outside the 21-day time limit; that applicant was not dismissed; and that applicant was prevented from bringing unfair dismissal application by reason of settlement agreement – further submitted unfair dismissal application was made vexatiously and/or without reasonable cause and ‘hopeless and bound to fail’ – claimed by reason of applicant’s unreasonable conduct, it had incurred costs in defending unfair dismissal application – applicant claimed he was forced to resign from his employment on 28 July 2016 and was in hospital from 2 August 2016 – conceded unfair dismissal application was made out of time but provided medical certificates confirming he was suffering from depression between November 2015 and January 2017 – claimed he had been falsely accused of bullying – alleged he did not have capacity to enter into settlement agreement – Commission found nothing in the evidence presented supported a finding of the application being made vexatiously – due to application being discontinued, Commission unable to determine if unfair dismissal application had a reasonable prospect of success – would have been open to the Commission to be satisfied there were exceptional circumstances warranting applicant being granted an extension of time – Commission found applicant’s claim of constructive dismissal not without merit – not satisfied applicant unreasonably continued with unfair dismissal application until it was discontinued – not satisfied it should have been reasonably apparently to applicant that his application had no reasonable prospect of success – not satisfied it was unreasonable for applicant to instigate proceedings – no jurisdiction to order costs – application for costs dismissed. Portelli v Baxter Healthcare P/L t/a Baxter Healthcare
