South Eastern Sydney Local Health District is defending a s.365 (Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal) instituted by Naicker.
August 12, 2016
A woman who claims a male nurse sexually assaulted her while she was doped up on medication at a Brisbane hospital has sued, claiming he should not have been allowed near her because he had done it before. The 33-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, argued the Metro South Hospital and Health Service had a duty to protect her from nurse Vijay Arora because he had sexually assaulted a female patient a year earlier at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. She claims she was assaulted during the night as she lay in her hospital bed at Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, at Coopers Plains, on August 3-4, 2013. Arora was on duty on her ward that night, she claims. According to a statement of claim filed in the District Court on August 2, the woman said she was vulnerable and drowsy from medication and could not call for other staff to help until the next morning. She claims she “feared further attacks” by Arora. She claims he digitally raped her and he squeezed her breasts with 14 separate “incidents” of sexual conduct. She is seeking $700,000 in damages for assault and battery, negligence and false imprisonment. She claims she has been left humiliated and anxious and she felt violated and powerless to resist the assaults. In February, Arora was acquitted of seven counts of sexual assaults and two counts of rape over this incident and two other complaints in separate instances involving women patients in 2012 and 2013. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency states on its website that Arora is suspended from practising as a nurse, and has been since May 2014.
August 12, 2016
The Health Services Union and Ramsay Healthcare also have a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) before Commissioner Cribb.
August 12, 2016
The Health Services Union and St John of God Health Care are contesting a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) before Fair Work Commissioner Cribb in Conference Room E & Conference Room H – Level 6 in Melbourne.
August 12, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – respondent not-for-profit community organisation reliant on government grants – applicant employed as coordinator on casual basis – respondent in financial difficulty – executive committee decided that until financial situation improved, there was no longer a viable position for a paid coordinator – respondent had applied for funding that could have been used to preserve applicant’s position – while funding had not yet been received, applicant had reasonable grounds to believe it would be forthcoming – test is not whether decision to terminate was prudent, but whether termination was a genuine redundancy defined by FW Act – Commission satisfied decision to terminate was because respondent changed the way it operated and no longer required applicant’s job to be performed by anyone else – respondent met its obligations under award to consult applicant since she was present at AGM and executive committee meeting – no other paid position into which applicant could have been redeployed since she was respondent’s only employee – application dismissed. Adams v Blamey Community Group
August 12, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – client in the aged care home fell and broke her hip whilst being walked to her bed – applicant dismissed for breaching the Registered Nurse professional conduct, breaching the Falls Management Process and breaching the Code of Conduct – failed to properly document the fall – tried to convince another staff member not to speak to Whiddon about the incident – Commission found that applicant was the most appropriate person to have documented it – applicant was afforded procedural fairness during the investigation process – Commission found that the dismissal was neither harsh, unjust nor unreasonable – application dismissed. Kaur v The Frank Whiddon Masonic Homes of New South Wales t/a The Whiddon Group
August 12, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – application to dismiss by employer – ss.394, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – appeal against decision to dismiss appellant’s unfair dismissal application pursuant to s.399A of FW Act – Commission dismissed application after appellant failed to comply with Consent Order made in respect to her substantive proceedings – appellant’s submissions addressed fairness of dismissal rather than whether there was public interest in granting permission to appeal and appeal of decision – task of assessing public interest test is discretionary one involving broad value judgment [Coal & Allied] – public interest not satisfied simply by identification of error or preference for different result – appeals on question of fact may only be made on ground that decision involved significant error of fact – not persuaded appellant has established arguable case of error in respect to findings – found Commission’s findings were open to him on facts established by evidence – appellant sought to re-run case advanced before Commission in hope of achieving different result – not satisfied appellant established public interest – not satisfied appeal raised any issues of importance or general application beyond the direct interests of the parties nor does it identify diversity of decisions at first instance – not satisfied decision of Commission manifests injustice or result is counterintuitive – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by Hansen against decision and order of Platt C of 31 May 2016 [[2016] FWC 3472] and [PR580948] Re: Calvary Health Care Adelaide Ltd
August 12, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – extension of time – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal filed one beyond outside statutory time limit – applicant submitted a number of reasons why her application was filed late, including that her grandfather suffered a heart attack and that she was required to provide care for her grandmother – applicant aware of dismissal on day of dismissal – extension of time would not prejudice employer – definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ from Nulty applied – Commission satisfied that grandfather’s heart attack and applicant’s subsequent carer responsibilities constitute exceptional circumstances – extension of time granted. Ansett v Grogans Chemmart Pharmacy t/a Grogans Pharmacy
