NEWS-HR

Advanced Health Invest Pty Ltd is appealing a previous decision (s.604 – Appeal of decisions) to the Full Bench in Court 1 – Level 6 in Melbourne (Chan).

The Health Services Union and Supported Tenancy Accommodation and Respite Tasmania will face off over a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) at 9:30am before Fair Work Commissioner Lee in the Fair Work Commission Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts Building 39-41 Davey Street Hobart.

A s.394 (Unfair dismissal) claim by Skye-Lee Baker citing Belgravia Health & Leisure has been rejected by Fair Work Deputy President Clancy, in Melbourne, on 7 June 2019. “I am satisfied that as Ms Baker has not completed the required minimum employment period, her application has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An order to this effect will be issued shortly,” ruled Deputy President Clancy.

Monash Health & St Vincent’s Hospital (Melbourne) Ltd and Another are defending a s.372 (Application to deal with other contravention disputes) in front of Fair Work Commissioner Wilson in Court 5 – Level 6 and Conference Room D – Level 6 in Melbourne (Millar).

The Paraplegic & Quadriplegic Association of South Australia Inc is facing a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) before Fair Work Commissioner Platt in Conference Room 6a – Level 6 in Adelaide (Miers).

The Oolong Aboriginal Corporation is facing a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) before Fair Work Commissioner Riordan in Courthouse Market Street Wollongong (McLeod).

Ambulance Victoria is still fighting a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) after a week. Fair Work Deputy President Young in Court 12 – Level 5 and Conference Room A – Level 5, in Melbourne, is hearing the matter (Hay).

A s.365 (Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal) by Stephen Hirvonen naming the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation has come to nothing. Deputy President Lake in Brisbane, on 6 June 2019 said no. The ruling summary is: “Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application made outside of statutory timeframe – extension of time – extension of time not granted – application dismissed.”