Twenty-one unfair dismissal/labour dispute applications will be heard today by the Fair Work Commission. The full list is: Rafic Pty Ltd (Essey), Wilson Services Company Pty Ltd (Marshall), Robot Coupe Australia (Paige), Hardman Chemicals Pty Ltd (Prasad), Regional Express Holdings Ltd (O’Halloran), Qube Logistics (SA) Pty Ltd (McIntyre), FSA Group Services Pty Ltd (Reynolds), Bupa Aged Care (Barker), Desago Real Estate Pty Ltd (Stevenson), Water Corporation (Batchem), Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd (Godfrey), Victoria University (Lawrence), Victoria Police (Brierley, Chuck), Professional Caliber Security (McInerney), Go To Court Franchising Pty Ltd (Lewis), Barada Barna Aboriginal Corporation (Dargan, Roos), Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (Timms), BD Farm Paris Creek Pty Ltd (Johnson).
July 5, 2017
The Fair Work Commission has eighteen unfair dismissal/labour dispute applications to be heard today. The full list is: Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (Demos), Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd (Harland), Suncorp Group (Miles), Mission Australia (Lee), Ensign Drilling Australia (Markham), Star Track Express Pty Ltd (Williams), Challenge North Shore, Precision Assembly (Bakri), Haemonetics Australia Pty Ltd (Pham), Sodexo Australia Pty Ltd (Hallam), Tri-Asset Pty Ltd (Seamer), Gippsland Water (Pendergast), Dematic Pty Ltd (Grech), Launch Housing Limited (Skiba), Quattro Group (MacGowan), Safe Places For Children Pty Limited (Charles), Go To Court Franchising Pty Ltd (Lewis), Logan City Electrical Service Division Pty Ltd (Antonarakis).
July 4, 2017
Fair Work Commissioners have twenty-two unfair dismissal/labour dispute applications to hear today. The full list is: Buchfelde Corp P/L atf Buchfelde Trust & Tobaskah Corp P/L atf Tobaska Trust T/A Adelaide Road Dental Practice (Pascoe), Peregrine Corporation (Murray), Watervalley Pty Limited (Sutton), Spotless Services Pty Ltd (Savoia), Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd (Lloyd), National Solutions Group (Andrews), Shailer Transport Pty Ltd (Kerr), Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Diocese of Townsville (Muhling), JBS Primo Queensland (McCormack), Northern Stevedoring Services (NSS) (Neliman), DBS Partners Pty Ltd (Wilson), Business Risks International (Victoria) Pty Ltd (Cessario), Ferngrove Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (Ji), Optec Pty Ltd atf Optec Unit Trust (Whelan), Salon Park Pty Ltd (Razumic), Aroona P&T Pty Ltd (Colella), InvoCare Australia Pty Limited (Fitzgerald), Sydney Recycling Services Pty Ltd (Labann), Bauer Kompressoren Australia Pty Ltd (Wan), Western Freight Management Pty Limited (Freeman), Northern Territory Government (Hutchinson), Warrnambool Cheese and Butter Factory company Holdings Limited (Brody).
July 3, 2017
The new financial year welcomes 28 applicants seeking redress for various complaints from Fair Work Commissioners. The full list is: Wyndham Vacation Resorts Asia Pacific Pty Ltd (Denyse Clarke), Sibelco Australia Limited (Gibson), Go To Court Franchising Pty Ltd (Lewis), Canberra Casino Ltd (Warland), Oracle (NSW) Pty Ltd (Mackenzie), Hegele Logistics Australia P/L (Springfield), Hillside (Australia New Media) Pty Limited (Poppleton), Toyota Motor Corporation Limited (Nguyen), Hairhouse Warehouse (Trifiletti), Pilbara Meta Maya Regional Aboriginal Group (Crabtree), Shire of Broome (Hankinson), Cappello Rowe Lawyers (Klievens), Hyster Yale Group (Fairbrass), MSS Strategic Medical & Rescue Pty Ltd (Hall), Star City Pty Ltd (Zacovich), Bake Life pty ltd (Wales), Excel Building Managment Pty Ltd (Kucera), Star Trek Express Pty Ltd (Williams), Hare Krishna Haribol Pty Ltd (Shandil), Projectmate Pty Ltd (Xu), BK Chemists (Trevisan), Mister Sunshine’s Pty Ltd (Vistoli), Streamline Plumbing (Simounds), Daclo Vietnamese Ethnic School (Ngoc Le, Nguyen), BHP Billiton Group (Johnson), Rail Commissioner (Williams), Days Eggs Pty Ltd (Taylor).
June 30, 2017
The Fair Work Commissioners will hear 24 unfair dismissal/labour dispute applications today. The full list is: Novotel Cairns Resort (Lorrain), Veolia Environmental Services Australia (Brown), Liquid Operations Pty Ltd (Butler), Seawalker @ Green Island Pty Ltd (Sumi), Go To Court Franchising Pty Ltd (Lewis), Ventura Bus Lines (Li), Australia Post Pty Ltd (Giannetti), Friends Resilience Pty Ltd (Baskin), City of Busselton (O’Dwyer), Agia Projects (Magee), Albion Park Bowling and Recreation Club Limited (Aitken), Broadbeach Services (Saville), Bill Buckle Autos Pty Ltd (Deak), Surfers Paradise Convenience Store (Abu AlGhanam), Solene Investments (Aus) Pty Ltd (Diaz), Assignments on Contract Int Pty Ltd (Isakidis), United Maritime Australia Pty Ltd (D’Alessandro, King, Overton, Pey, Tonkin, Vickers), National Prescribing Service (McAllan), BB Retail Capital Pty Ltd & Frzop and Another (Miller).
June 30, 2017
MODERN AWARDS – 4 yearly review – s.156 Fair Work Act 2009 – Full Bench – on 23 February 2017 the Commission issued a decision dealing with the weekend and public holiday penalty rates, and some related matters, in a number of awards in the Hospitality and Retail sectors (the Penalty Rates decision) [[2017] FWCFB 1001] – on 5 June 2017 the Commission issued the Penalty Rates – Transitional Arrangements decision [[2017] FWCFB 3001] which dealt with the implementation of the Penalty Rates decision including the determination of various transitional arrangements – draft variation determinations in respect of the Sunday penalty rate provisions in the Fast Food, Hospitality, Restaurant, Retail and Pharmacy Awards were published for comment on 7 June 2017 – submissions were received from the Australian Retailers Association, National Retail Association and Master Grocers Australia (the Retail Associations), Australian Industry Group (Ai Group), the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) and an organisation called WorkSight P/L – the expressions used in the draft determinations were consistent with the approach adopted by the Commission in the course of reviewing modern awards as part of the 4 yearly review (the Review) – the review of each modern award involves the publication of an exposure draft which reformats the award to make it simpler and easier to understand and incorporates consistent expressions – given the different stages of completion of the plain language re-drafting processes we have decided that the current form of the penalty rates provisions will be retained for the purpose of finalising these determinations – however, the drafting of these clauses will be revisited during the course of the Plain Language Project – one further matter in contention, is the application of the Penalty Rates decision to trainees employed under the terms of the Fast Food Award – employers are obliged to classify all employees covered by the award (including trainees) as either a level 1, level 2 or level 3 Fast Food Employee – Full Bench did not propose to vary the draft determination to make express reference to trainees – any interested party wishing to pursue this issue should file an application to vary the Fast Food Award so that the matter may be fully considered – there is a final matter, in relation to the Pharmacy Award – Sunday penalty rates under the Pharmacy Award are to be reduced for ordinary hours worked between 7.00 am and 9.00 pm on a Sunday – the Penalty Rates decision stated that penalty rates for work before 7.00 am and after 9.00 pm on a Sunday will be the subject of further proceedings and accordingly the existing rates remain in force for hours worked during those hours – final determinations to come into operation on 1 July 2017. 4 yearly review of modern awards – Penalty Rates – Transitional Arrangements
June 30, 2017
ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to deal with a dispute under BMA Daunia Mine Enterprise Agreement 2014 (the Agreement) – dispute concerns proper construction of clause 21 of Agreement – whether employee has right under clause 21.1 to be represented by any person including full time official of the CFMEU for the purposes of the Procedure at any stage – respondent submitted interpretation only allows for representation from fellow employee during initial stages prior to being referred to Commission as opposed to a union – applicant submitted Agreement is not ambiguous – Agreement refers to both representatives and employee representatives throughout – given clause 21.1 only discusses representative this indicates it was not intended to be limited to employee representatives otherwise alternative terminology would have been used – respondent submitted clause 21.1 is ambiguous and thus regard should be had to the context and purpose of clause as well as document as a whole, other associated documents and legislative background – respondent submitted wide interpretation would open floodgates and allow potentially unlimited representation which would cause significant disruption should respondent be required to induct a wide range of persons seeking entry to the Mine as well as create absurdity and significantly hinder respondents ability to resolve disputes – whereas applicant submitted that meetings could continue to be held at offices in Murrumba and Mackay to continue to limit disruption – respondent submitted reading Agreement as a whole namely clauses 21.1 and 27 which discuss representatives and employee representatives demonstrates it was contemplated by the parties that a representative of an employee for the purpose of clause 21.1 would be a person employed by the respondent – respondent also submitted several subclauses of clause 21 could not operate if representative was interpreted to include non-employee representatives – Golden Cockerel considered – Commission not satisfied Golden Cockerel is a series of steps that must be followed nor an exhaustive code of principles but a collection of authorities on interpretation of industrial instruments which distil into a number of major points relevant to such a task – Commission not satisfied if language in Agreement has clear meaning that context cannot be considered – Commission satisfied plain reading of clause 21.1 of Agreement suggests employees in disputes with respondent regarding application of Agreement or NES are entitled to be represented by a person of their choice without restriction – contextual matters considered – Commission noted references in clauses 21.1 and 21.7 to employees being able to nominate a representative of their choice to represent them at any stage of the Procedure but found changes in terminology from employer, employee or a representative of the employee in the early stages to ‘parties’ or a ‘party’ when dispute is referred to the Commission create a clear distinction with respect to the interpretation of representative – Commission considered that to find that any person nominated by an employee can be a representative at the stages of the dispute procedure in clause 21.1 to 21.7, could result in a person with no local connection becoming involved in an issue involving an employee which would be inconsistent with the objective that issues raised by employees are dealt with at a local level to the maximum extent possible – Commission satisfied limiting representative to an employee of the respondent was in keeping with the objective of the clause – Commission satisfied clause 21 and clause 27 should be read in association and that representative and employee representative are the same – Commission satisfied that disputes could not be efficiently resolved if non employees could enter the site for the purpose of representation and the notion of offsite meetings further hindered the efficient resolution of disputes – Commission found Agreement does not extend to having any person they elect as a representative during a dispute and is limited to a representative who is employed by respondent for the stages in sub-clauses 21.1 to 21.7 of the Issue Resolution Procedure in clause 21 of the Agreement. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Mining and Energy Division Queensland District Branch v Central Queensland Services P/L
June 30, 2017
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – applicant dismissed after pre-start meetings held on 28 and 29 January 2017 – Commission found valid reason for dismissal – respondent employer alleged applicant failed to comply with express direction given to him to discuss requirements of Charter and Code with crew of employees he supervised – applicant allowed an employee to address crew at pre-start meeting about an incident in which one employee in crew had allegedly ‘dobbed in’ another employee for sleeping on job at 9am in the morning – applicant failed to properly address conduct of employee at meeting – applicant spoke to the employee who had allegedly ‘dobbed in’ another employee and in doing so breached charter and code – Commission accepted evidence of applicant that did not breach obligations under Code or Charter by making statements that crew members should ‘come to [him] personally’ as was not intention of discouraging employees from raising concerns but rather discouraging them from creating rumours and whingeing amongst themselves – Commission did find that applicant contravene obligations under charter and code by permitting employee to address members of crew regarding ‘dobbing’ incident, particularly in circumstances where applicant knew that employee wanted to give speech about another crew member and applicant had not made any inquiries about the truth of matter – applicant should have pointed out to employee that speech to members of crew was inappropriate and in breach of code and charter – applicant should have obtained further information concerning why employee reported sleeping co-worker before chastising him for doing so – Commission satisfied sound, defensible and well founded reasons to dismiss applicant based on conduct [Selvachandran] – Commission also considered fact applicant was notified of reasons for dismissal and provided opportunity to respond – also considered length of employment history, whether his treatment was consistent with the treatment of other staff, the economic and personal circumstances of the applicant, the gravity of the conduct engaged in and the applicant’s remorse for his actions – Commission found, having regard to totality of conduct on which Mt Arthur relied to dismiss applicant, satisfied in all circumstances that applicant’s dismissal was not disproportionate to gravity of his conduct, nor was it harsh in any other sense – satisfied that respondent’s dismissal of applicant was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – applicant’s unfair dismissal application dismissed. Crebert v Mt Arthur Coal P/L
