Amana Living Incorporated has a (s.372 – Application to deal with other contravention disputes) matter before Deputy President Beaumont in Conference Room 12.33 & Breakout Room in Perth (Pattullil Abraham).
October 25, 2017
Mater Health Services (Mater Misericordiae Health Services Brisbane Limited) has been served with a (s.739 – Application to deal with a dispute) by a staffer (Cook).
October 25, 2017
Health Services Union and Able Australia Services have a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) before Deputy President Hamilton in Court 3 & Conference Room B – level 6 in Melbourne today.
October 25, 2017
Health Services Union – Victoria No.1 Branch has a (s.394 – Application for unfair dismissal remedy) with which it must deal (Sanli).
October 25, 2017
JM Golden Care Pty Ltd has a brace of (s.739 – Application to deal with a dispute) to defend before Commissioner Bissett in Court 5 & Conference Room D – level 6 in Melbourne (Anderson/Wardill).
October 24, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – ss.394, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – appellant employer sought permission to appeal decision granting unfair dismissal remedy for respondent employee – employee granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement at first instance – employer contended evidence at first instance too fragile to support findings made at first instance – no probative evidence to support finding at first instance that witnesses colluded together to make complaint against employee consistent – contended permission to appeal would be in public interest because issues in appeal concerned significant and fundamental appellable error – Full Bench found contents on emails containing complaints not so strikingly similar as to support inference much less conclusion of collusion in their preparation – findings of collusion in context in which findings were made amounted to findings of serious inappropriate conduct in the workplace – such serious findings must have probative evidentiary foundation – Full Bench found it arguable that evidence relied upon by Commission could not properly support serious findings that he made – found collusion findings appeared to be inextricably linked to motives attributed to each of the witnesses to injure employee’s employment with employer so as to raise arguable case of appellable error as to credibility findings made by Commission – Full Bench satisfied arguable case of appellable error in nature [House v The King] – permission to appeal granted – substantive appeal to be heard. Appeal by Thompson Healthcare P/L against decision and order of Sams DP of 28 July 2017 [[2017] FWC 3505] Re: Adamopoulos
October 24, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – applicant alleged termination of employment was unfair – commenced employment with respondent August 2014 until dismissal 31 March 2017 – respondent alleged applicant failed to follow lawful instruction by not completing audit for Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and taking unauthorised leave on multiple occasions – applicant accepted she failed to follow lawful instruction and took unauthorised leave – applicant provided with written warning on 21 March 2017 and termination of employment letter on 21 March 2017 – applicant alleged employment terminated after emailing fraud concerns to respondent on 29 March 2017 – Commission accepted the dismissal was procedurally flawed however was not sufficient to find in favour of applicant – satisfied respondent had valid reason for termination – dismissal not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – application dismissed. Douglas v Bynoe Community Advancement Cooperative Society Ltd
October 24, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – termination at initiative of employer – ss.394, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – appeal against decision [[2017] FWC 3200] – Commission at first instance found that dismissal was harsh and unjust and ordered reinstatement – permission to appeal granted in relation to grounds concerning Commission’s conclusion that employee was dismissed – Full Bench held where employment has terminated because employer acts on a communication of resignation by the employee it is necessary for an applicant to specify whether they contend they were dismissed under s.386(1)(a) or s.386(1)(b) or both – found that Commission had applied ‘special circumstances’ test relevant to s.386(1)(b) but the employee had advanced a case that she had been dismissed under s.386(1)(b) – found that Commission found a case that had not been argued and an appealable error was made – ordered matter referred to single member for re-hearing. Bupa Aged Care Australia P/L t/a Bupa Aged Care Mosman v Tavassoli
