
Employment judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Court of Appeal decided that an employer must provide a safe working environment for their employees and is responsible for any injuries that occur due to unsafe conditions. In this case, a worker was injured while working and the employer was found liable for the injury.
The Federal Court ruled that an employer can set work schedules without dividing regular working hours evenly across all shifts within a three-week cycle under the Black a person a person. This decision allows for more flexible scheduling practices by employers.
The Industrial Relations Commission clarified how leave entitlements are calculated under the 38-hour workweek system. This includes annual, sick, and long service leave, with each day of leave resulting in an 8-hour debit to the employee's leave entitlements, while 0.4 of an hour is notionally added to the employee's RDO.
The court ordered an employer to pay a penalty after it underpaid its workers due to a misinterpretation of their employment contract. This case highlights that employers must comply strictly with enterprise agreements and face penalties for non-compliance, even if they acted in good faith.
The Court allowed an amendment to substitute the correct employer as the respondent in a general protections application despite a discrepancy in the Fair Work Commission certificate. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the certificate is to confirm that the dispute has been the subject of conciliation at the Fair Work Commission prior to legal proceedings commencing, and that a technical defect in the certificate does not invalidate the proceedings.
A worker who brought a case against an employer at the Federal Court is asking for permission to stop her legal action without having to pay the employer's legal fees. She also wants to use some of the documents she prepared in court for another tribunal hearing. The judge agreed that neither party acted unreasonably and allowed the worker to discontinue the proceeding without costs.
In this case, the Federal Court determined that when a business changes hands but the worker continues their job without interruption, their entitlement to long service leave remains intact. This decision impacts how employers and employees view long-term benefits in such transactions.
In this case, the Federal Court of Australia decided to revoke an order that required a third-party witness to give their evidence in written form (affidavit). Instead, they allowed the witness to be questioned orally during the trial. This decision was made because the third party refused to cooperate with providing the affidavit.
An employee asked for extra time to file an unfair dismissal claim, but the Commissioner said no because the employee couldn't show enough reason for the delay.