VadeLab

Employment

Employment judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.

AllowedIndustrial Relations Commission (NSW)·14 Oct 2003

Employer Held Liable for Negligence Leading to Fatal Explosion

DismissedIndustrial Relations Commission (NSW)·13 Aug 2003

Commission rules lead bonus excluded from clause 19.16 of the Award

DismissedAdministrative Decisions Tribunal (NSW)·11 Aug 2003

Employer's Requirement Not Reasonable: Indirect Discrimination Claim Dismissed

AllowedIndustrial Relations Commission (NSW)·11 July 2003

Unfair Dismissal Case: Constructive Dismissal Due to Lack of Consultation

The Industrial Relations Commission ruled that the worker's employment was unfairly terminated because the employer failed to consult properly and acted improperly. The worker received compensation as a result.

OtherIndustrial Relations Commission (NSW)·12 June 2003

Employer Fined for Defective Equipment Causing Injury

OtherIndustrial Relations Commission (NSW)·06 June 2003

Employer Fined for Unsafe Working Conditions

An employer was fined for failing to ensure the safety of employees working on unsecured metal plates covering lubricant pits. The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales found the employer liable under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 and imposed a fine of $135,000.

AllowedSupreme Court of New South Wales·06 May 2003

Stay of Supreme Court Proceedings Pending IRC Decision

The court decided to pause the proceedings in the Supreme Court until the Industrial Relations Commission makes a decision on a related contract issue. This decision was made to ensure that the contract's final form is determined before the Supreme Court can rule on the case.

RefusedIndustrial Relations Commission (NSW)·07 Feb 2003

Injunction to Prevent Receiver Appointment Refused

DismissedIndustrial Relations Commission (NSW)·01 Oct 2002

Unfair Dismissal Claim Dismissed Due to Governing Award

OtherIndustrial Relations Commission (NSW)·10 Sept 2002

Employer Held Liable for Child's Safety Breach at Mine

AllowedIndustrial Relations Commission (NSW)·23 Aug 2002

Contract declared unfair and varied to include exit fee

AllowedNSW Caselaw (corte não mapeada: NSWCC)·28 Feb 2002

Worker Awarded Compensation for Permanent Loss of Left Hand

DismissedFederal Court of Australia·08 Feb 2002

Federal Court Dismisses Trade Union Member’s Interim Relief Request

AllowedSupreme Court of New South Wales·10 Dec 2001

Employer Liable for Psychiatric Injury Caused by Failure to Protect Employee

AllowedIndustrial Relations Commission (NSW)·06 Dec 2001

Employer Held Liable for Student's Severe Injuries Caused by Unguarded Classroom Machinery

An employer was found liable for a student's severe injuries caused by unguarded machinery in a classroom. The court ruled that the employer failed to ensure proper machine guarding and adequate supervision, leading to the student's injuries.

DismissedCourt of Appeal (NSW)·11 Oct 2001

Appeal Dismissed: Workers Compensation Claim Against Principal Contractor

AllowedCourt of Appeal (NSW)·02 Oct 2001

Employer Held Liable for Employee's Back Injury Due to Unsafe Manual Handling Practices

The Court of Appeal decided that an employer was responsible for an employee's back injury caused by unsafe manual handling practices. The employer failed to provide adequate training and warnings about safe lifting techniques, leading to the employee's injury.

AllowedSupreme Court of New South Wales·21 Sept 2001

Worker's Compensation Claim for Personal Injury - NSW Supreme Court Decision

A worker was injured while working for a company and filed a claim for compensation. The court assessed the damages according to the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

AllowedSupreme Court of New South Wales·19 Sept 2001

Interlocutory Injunction Granted Against Unlawful Picketing

AllowedCourt of Appeal (NSW)·14 Sept 2001

Worker's Brain Damage Recognised as Permanent Despite Short Survival Time

← PreviousPage 9 · 221 judgmentsNext →
Employment — Case law | VadeLab