Karingal Inc is still jousting with a s.394 (application for unfair dismissal remedy) launched by a dismissed staff member (Carroll).
January 19, 2016
Moran Management is facing a s.394 (application for unfair dismissal remedy) from an ex-staffer (Burd).
January 19, 2016
Patterson Lakes Community Centre Inc is in a s.394 (application for unfair dismissal remedy) arm wrestle over the dismissal of staffer Rimmer.
January 19, 2016
Medibank Health Solutions Telehealth Pty Ltd is being accused of snipping a staff member from the payroll (Smith).
January 19, 2016
Blue Care is having a previous win in the Fair Work Commission challenged by an ex-worker (Woolston).
January 18, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – casual – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – casual care support worker for not for profit charitable organisation – applicant rostered to work 128 hours every month subject to additional shifts and swaps – applicant advised casual employees to change from rostered in advance to being offered work on’call in’ basis – applicant requested permanent employment – respondent confirmed status as casual employee – respondent decided not to offer applicant shifts due to application to Commission – respondent argued jurisdictional issue – considered whether applicant actually dismissed and whether casual employee – applicant rostered regular and systematic hours over long period – expectation that hours would continue to be rostered in advance – regular and systematic rostering identified applicant as permanent part-time employee not casual employee [Blue Line Cruises] and [Cetin] – found applicant was dismissed – applicant not provided with valid reason or procedural fairness – dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable – applicant sought reinstatement, back pay and continuity of employment – respondent argued no entitlement to reinstatement and loss of trust and confidence – no evidence to support claim of lost trust and confidence – reinstatement appropriate – applicant reinstated to role on permanent/part-time basis for 128 hours in four week cycle – order for continuity of employment and four weeks back pay. Perry v Nardy House Inc.
January 18, 2016
GENERAL PROTECTIONS – extension of time – ss.365, 366 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for contravention involving dismissal – application lodged 14 days out of time – applicant initially completed unfair dismissal application within statutory time limit – discontinued application upon being notified did not meet minimum employment period – applicant submitted filing incorrect form as reason for delay – Commission’s noted applicant’s contention not supported by Commission’s records – correspondence did not mention applicant using wrong form – general protections application lodged 14 days following correspondence – no explanation for delay – credible reason must be provided for the entire period of delay [Smithers] – can amend application if matter does not involve fundamental alternation in nature of application [Etemi] – distinguished from present facts – applicant precluded from making general protections application until unfair dismissal application discontinued – applicant sought to rely on fact that notice of discontinuation and general protections application filed together within 14 timeframe specified in Commission’s correspondence – filing notice of discontinuance cannot be relied upon to undermine operation of s.366(2) of FW Act – correspondence did not contemplate lodging general protections application – ordinary and natural meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ includes combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon [Nulty] – Commission not satisfied exceptional circumstances – application dismissed. Webb v Disability Services Australia Limited.
January 18, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – extension of time – representative error – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application made 23 days’ late – applicant asserted representative error reason for delay – M N Robinson considered – found applicant’s conduct did not support a finding of representative error – Nulty considered – no exceptional circumstances found – extension not granted – application dismissed – order issued. Lenehan v South West Healthcare t/a South West Healthcare Warrnambool.
