Christina Adams has failed to persuade the Fair Work Commission that Blamey Community Group dismissed her unfairly. Senior Deputy President Hamberger held the termination to be a genuine redundancy.
August 8, 2016
The Health Services Union and Latrobe Regional Hospital are arguing a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) before Commissioner Cribb in the Latrobe Valley Law Courts 134 Commercial Road Morwell.
August 8, 2016
The Fair Work Commission has allowed a s.319 (Application for an order relating to instruments covering new employer and non-transferring employees) by Anglican Retirement Villages (Diocese of Sydney) T/A Anglican Retirement Villages.
August 8, 2016
The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia Central Operations are locked in a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) stoush before Commissioner Platt in Conference Room 6b – Level 6 in Adelaide.
August 8, 2016
Ngaanyatjarra Health Service (Aboriginal Corporation) T/A Ngaanyatjarra Health Service has failed to persuade the Fair Work Commission to allow it costs against Andrew Roberts and Others.
August 5, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – costs – ss.400A, 401, 611 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for costs order against former employee and his solicitors – employee discontinued unfair dismissal application after conciliation but prior to arbitration – employer argued costs incurred as original application not made in time, did not pertain to termination of employment, was made with ulterior motives, and employee did not dispute misconduct allegations – Commission found power to order costs under s.611 of FW Act required clear evidence of unreasonable conduct – ‘without reasonable cause’ means ‘so obviously untenable that it cannot possible succeed’, ‘manifestly groundless’ or ‘discloses a case which the Court is satisfied cannot succeed’ [Keep v Performance] – Commission held original application not commenced unreasonably nor made without reasonable cause – employee’s contentions regarding timing of application had reasonable prospects of success – questions relating to the nature and characterisation of the dismissal could reasonably and properly be dealt with in hearing – nothing out of the ordinary, unreasonable, vexatious or lacking in prospects – application dismissed. Ngaanyatjarra Health Service (Aboriginal Corporation) t/a Ngaanyatjarra Health Service v Roberts and Ors
August 5, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – respondent contended dismissal genuine redundancy – applicant covered by Victorian Public Health Sector (Health Professionals, Health and Allied Services, Managers & Administrative Officers) Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 – Agreement contained consultation term which provided for discussion about reasons for proposed redundancy and consideration of measures to avert or mitigate – applicant’s salary claimed against BRAF project grant with three year funding – respondent obtained a separate program grant for period of five years – distinguishable from project grant in that provided funding across several teams rather than one project – respondent contended it was communicated to applicant that BRAF project would not continue beyond current project timelines and reinforced message in meeting with applicant in April and December 2014 – meeting in May 2015 applicant advised position would be made redundant in December 2015 – applicant claimed she was not consulted adequately – Commission satisfied applicant aware in May 2015 position would be redundant – satisfied intention to discontinue BRAF project clearly communicated to applicant – rejected applicant’s claim that subject to coercion to sign deed of release – respondent provided evidence based on rationale for decision to reduce priority on BRAF project – Commission accepted operational rationale for decision – satisfied various options about alternatives to redundancy discussed in number of meetings – found lack of real effort on part of respondent to achieve redeployment and that applicant could have been redeployed to one or other vacant positions – would have been reasonable in circumstances to redeploy applicant – found dismissal was for reasons of redundancy and consultation obligations met however not genuine redundancy due to failure to comply with redeployment requirements – applicant did not seek reinstatement – order for compensation $9570.73 taking into account viability of respondent and long service of applicant. Ferrao v Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute
August 5, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – minimum employment period – transfer of business – ss.22, 384, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – respondent submitted applicant was not an employee or protected from unfair dismissal – had not served minimum employment period – Maylands Dental Care was sold by John James Gittins & Accordia Holdings P/L atf Gittins Service Trust (the old employer) to respondent in February 2016, settlement taking place 18 March 2016 – applicant worked for old employer at from September 2012 onwards – on March 2016 she was notified by old employer that her employment would be terminated on 18 March 2016 – confirmed all her entitlements would be paid out – on 8 March 2016 applicant met with respondent and advised she was happy to stay on – text message sent by respondent on 18 March 2016 confirmed hours – applicant believed she had been offered employment – respondent submitted text message sent on 18 March 2016 was not a clear offer of employment but instructions for one week’s work – conceded there was a potential offer – next day respondent recruited another receptionist – applicant dismissed – respondent relied on clause in Sale Agreement – submitted he was notified by old employer that all previous staff were given their required notice and paid entitlements – whether any period of applicant’s employment with old employer counts as service with respondent – whether applicant was a ‘transferring employee’ – Commission found there was a transfer of assets from the old employer to respondent to establish a connection – not satisfied applicant was a transferring employee – application dismissed. Gittins v Amitik P/L atf Sea Otters Trust t/a Maylands Dental Centre
