
Employment judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled against an employer's request to stop a former employee from working for a competitor. The court determined that the restrictions violated public policy and were therefore invalid.
A federal judge allowed union officials with permits to enter a construction site for discussions and health inspections, despite objections from the employer. This decision ensures that workers' rights are protected under workplace laws.
In this case, the Federal Court dismissed an appeal challenging a decision made by the lower court regarding whether subcontracting charter work and removing a roster system constituted adverse action under the Fair Work Act. The court upheld the a person judge's findings that these actions were not taken because of participation in industrial activities.
In this case, the a person successfully sued an employer for a person liability to a subcontractor's breaches of workplace laws. The employer was declared liable because they were aware of the subcontractor's non-compliance with minimum wage and superannuation requirements but did not take any action.
A worker's statement of claim was struck out by the NSW Supreme Court because it did not clearly state a cause of action and did not meet the necessary statutory requirements under NSW workers compensation laws.
In this case, the Federal Court of Australia decided to deny the employer's request for costs related to employment claims under the Fair Work Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. The court ruled that the employer was not entitled to costs for claims under the Fair Work Act when the employee's claims under the Sex Discrimination Act failed.
In this case, the Federal Court found that a union and its officer had violated the Fair Work Act by organising workers to refuse to work unless an employee who had been fired was given his job back. As a result, the court ordered them to pay fines.
The NSW Industrial Relations Commission decided that recent changes to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 affect how appeals are handled. These changes mean that some appeals can no longer be heard by the Commission and must be sent to the Supreme Court.
In a case brought by the a person, the Federal Court determined that an online retailer was the true employer of certain workers despite attempts to use other companies for payroll purposes. This decision highlights the importance of identifying the correct employer based on the overall business relationship.
In this case, the Federal Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal regarding a decision that required the claimant to provide information about his entitlement to costs in employment proceedings. The court affirmed its power to issue additional orders related to the calculation and recovery of legal costs after making an initial order.
In this case, the Federal Court fined the a person $25,000 for breaching the a person Work Act by engaging in coercive conduct against workers' unions. The court emphasised the need to deter such behavior and considered the State's history of similar contraventions.