Malanda and District RSL and Citizens Memorial Club Inc. is up against a pair of s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) before Fair Work Commissioner Booth in the Fair Work Commission Central Plaza Two Level 14 66 Eagle Street Brisbane (Deeley/Dickerson).
November 7, 2016
M-Power Community Services Inc has been served with a s.365 (Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal) notice (by Solanki) to appear before Fair Work Commissioner Saunders at level 3, 237 Wharf Road in Newcastle at noon.
November 7, 2016
Ka’lang Respite Care Centre Aboriginal Corporation is facing a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) brought on by an ex-employee (Barney).
November 7, 2016
An application for approval of the LifeFlight Australia Limited and Rotary Wing Pilots Certified Agreement 2016-2019 (s.185 – Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement) will be reviewed by Fair Work Commissioner Simpson in his Brisbane Chambers.
November 7, 2016
Mosaic Support Service is defending a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) lodged by an ex-staffer (Rattue).
November 4, 2016
CASE PROCEDURES – appeals – ss.365, 372, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – appellant lodged two general protections applications – application made under s.365 [C2015/7291] closed by the Commission on 27 June 2016 (2015 Application) – appellant had advised he did not intend to make the application under s.365 of FW Act and that he no longer wished to proceed with that application – application made under s.372 [C2016/4278] closed by the Commission on 5 July 2016 (2016 Application) – appellant advised that respondent refused to participate in a conference – appellant applied for permission to appeal the decisions of the Commission to close the applications – grounds for appeal included the delay caused by the Commission Canberra Registry staff in progressing his 2015 Application; the provision of misleading information by Commission staff which led him to discontinue his 2015 Application and lodge his 2016 Application; and the actions taken by Commission staff to close the two matters – Full Bench did not consider there was any ‘decision’ in relation to the 2015 Application which may be the subject of an appeal under s.604 of FW Act – considered discontinued in accordance with appellant’s communication that he did not wish to proceed with it – even if there was an appealable decision Full Bench did not consider that appellant had demonstrated any arguable case that the Commission erred in treating his 2015 Application as discontinued – in relation to the 2016 Application the Full Bench did not consider that the Commission made any decision capable of being appealed under s.604 – appellant made aware that if he wished to agitate his 2016 Application, he could make an appropriate application to the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – Full Bench found appellant failed to demonstrate any arguable case that the Commission erred in closing matters C2015/7291 and C2016/4278 – not in public interest to grant permission to appeal – appeal incompetent because no appealable decision had been identified – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by Dyczynski against action taken by the Commission to close matters C2015/7291 and C2016/4278 Re: Remede P/L t/a Remede Wellness Medicine
November 4, 2016
CASE PROCEDURES – stay order – s.400, 604, 606 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for stay order – at first instance Commission ordered reinstatement of employee to position occupied immediately prior to dismissal by appellant – before stay order is granted, Commission required to be satisfied that arguable case exists with some reasonable prospects of success in respect of both question of leave to appeal and substantive merits of appeal and that balance of convenience favours granting of stay – Edghill considered – consideration of whether appeal was arguable with reasonable prospects of success must take into account its prospects of obtaining permission to appeal under s.400(1) of FW Act – appellant submitted that Commission erred by failing to find that kissing patient was serious misconduct and that reinstatement was inappropriate – submitted that issues were in public interest – satisfied arguable case existed and reasonable prospect for permission to appeal to be granted – satisfied stay order appropriate on balance of convenience – ordered operation of part of decision [[2016] FWC 6780] and order [PR585427] be stayed pending decision of appeal or further order of Commission. Appeal by Bendigo Health Care Group against decision of Ryan C of 14 September 2016 [[2016] FWC 6780] Re: Logan
November 4, 2016
ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – protected action ballot – s.437 Fair Work Act 2009 – two applications for protected action ballot order (PABO) by ANMF and HSU (the Applicants) in relation to negotiations with HammondCare for an enterprise agreement – respondent objected to form of questions proposed by the Applicants and further sought longer notice period due to exceptional circumstances should PABO be made – respondent argued questions to be put to employees involved composite yes/no regarding various forms of industrial action rather than option of a yes or no response to each form of industrial action – Commission of view question in current form was clear and concise and was not ambiguous – Commission followed approach taken in John Holland in determining approach taken by Applicants did not render applications invalid – regarding respondent request for a longer notice period, the Applicants argued respondent failed to provide any evidence suggesting statutory norm was inadequate for purpose of making reasonable contingency plans – respondent relied on risk to residents and staff if replacement staff were not properly trained in the HammondCare model – Commission not persuaded circumstances relied upon by respondent justified an extension of the period of notice in all the circumstances of this case – respondent’s objections rejected and protected action ballot orders made. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and Anor v HammondCare
