An application by Stephen Mulqueeny TA Mulqueeny Pharmacy (s.120 – Application to vary redundancy pay for other employment or incapacity to pay) will be determined by Deputy President Clancy in his Melbourne chambers at 3pm.
September 1, 2017
A s.185 (Enterprise agreement) application by Halenvy Pty Ltd atf Laurieton Lakeside Unit Trust T/A Laurieton Lakeside Aged Care Residence & Weeroona Aged Care Residence for its Halenvy Pty Ltd ATF Laurieton Lakeside Unit Trust, NSWNMA, ANMF NSW Branch and HSU New South Wales Branch Enterprise Agreement 2017 has been stamped by Commissioner Saunders in Melbourne on 31 August 2017.
September 1, 2017
The Health Services Union and Eastern Health are in a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) clinch before Commissioner Cribb in conference rooms E & F – level 6 in Melbourne at 2pm.
September 1, 2017
A s.185 (Enterprise agreement) application by Paston Pty Ltd T/A Meredith Aged Care Facility for its Meredith House Aged Care NSWNMA, ANMF NSW Branch and HSU New South Wales Branch Enterprise Agreement 2017 has been granted by Commissioner Saunders in Melbourne on 31 August 2017.
September 1, 2017
RR Lifestyle Support Limited is facing a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) before Commissioner Riordan in hearing room 12-1 – level 12 in Sydney (Gibson).
September 1, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – remedy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – applicant commenced employment with respondent on 4 July 2014 – covered by Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (Award) – respondent objected to application on basis of genuine redundancy due to pending loss of clients and therefore not in position to generate enough funds to sustain applicant’s full time wage – Commission satisfied that dismissal was due to financial difficulties experienced by respondent but there was no evidence that it complied with consultation requirements of Award – consultation obligations required by s.389 not met and therefore dismissal could not be regarded as genuine redundancy – whether dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable – valid reason for dismissal as applicant dismissed as result of her job no longer being required to be performed due to changes in operational requirements – as respondent failed to consult with applicant in manner required by Award, Commission concluded that termination of employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable – application granted – question of remedy – applicant did not seek reinstatement and Commission satisfied that it was not appropriate, particularly in light of closure of respondent – compensation of $824.38 ordered. Dignon v Community Caring P/L t/a Carers That Care
September 1, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – apparent reason for dismissal was impending closure of business – business remained open – respondent contended pending loss of clients meant it was unable to generate enough funds to sustain applicant’s full-time wage – it later stated applicant was dismissed due to negligence in performance of duties – Commission found applicant’s dismissal was not due to work performance but due to respondent’s financial difficulties which led to reduction in headcount – no evidence that respondent complied with consultation requirements of Clerks – Private Sector Award 2010 – no written information given to applicant about major workplace change, contrary to Award’s consultation clause – Commission found dismissal not a genuine redundancy – valid reason for dismissal existed, since applicant had been dismissed as a result of her job no longer being required because of changes in operational requirements of business – notification of reason was verbal, with applicant being told business would be closing in two weeks’ time – no credible evidence suggesting applicant was dismissed due to unsatisfactory performance – Commission considered it relevant that had applicant’s employment been terminated by way of redundancy, she would have been entitled to notice and redundancy pay for her two years and 11 months of full-time service and only one weeks’ notice was paid – also relevant was the finding that the respondent had failed to consult about change in the manner required by the Award – Commission found dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable – compensation in lieu of reinstatement appropriate – Commission awarded $5,482.26 in compensation. Morris v Community Caring P/L t/a Carers That Care
September 1, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – valid reason – performance – remedy – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant employed by Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation (TCAC) as a cook – applicant started off as casual and subsequently made permanent part-time – on 27 July 2016 there was an incident in the kitchen with her supervisors – on 16 August 2017 meeting was held with applicant and Human Resources – no basis on which applicant could understand this was a performance meeting and outcomes were not set out in writing to ensure there would be no confusion as to future expectations – on 11 November 2016 there was another incident involving applicant – on 28 November applicant’s employment was terminated as she was deemed not ‘a good fit for the role’ – Commission not satisfied that the incidents were of such a serious nature that they warranted dismissal – applicant was denied procedural fairness and was given no advice as to why her employment might be terminated – not afforded an opportunity to improve prior to the decision to terminate employment – no formal outcome of meeting meant that there was nothing to objectively measure applicant’s future behaviour against – when the November incident occurred applicant was unaware of possible consequences – whilst Commission did not find applicant blameless in issues with supervisors, this did not provide valid reason for dismissal and as such her dismissal was harsh – Commission satisfied applicant was unfairly dismissed – further directions about compensation. Newchurch v Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation
