An application for approval of the Asset Fire Security & Mechanical Services Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Fire Services Union Collective Agreement 2015-2019 (s.185 – Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement) is also on today’s agenda for Commissioner Roe.
July 15, 2016
An application for approval of the Select Fire Systems Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Fire Services Union Collective Agreement 2015-2019 (s.185 – Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement) has been directed to Commissioner Roe.
July 15, 2016
An application for approval of the Champion Fire Protection Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Fire Services Union Collective Agreement 2015-2019 (s.185 – Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement) will be determined by Commissioner Roe.
July 15, 2016
An application for approval of the Brisbane Fire Protection Pty Ltd and CEPU Plumbing Division Fire Services Union Collective Agreement 2015-2019 (s.185 – Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement) is being heard by Commissioner Roe in the Fair Work Commission Terrace Tower 80 William Street East Sydney.
July 15, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – extension of time – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – Commission required to determine effective date of dismissal and if necessary, whether extension of time required – respondent submitted applicant abandoned employment – on evidence applicant had clearly notified respondent of absence and respondent had clearly consented – abandonment of employment argument rejected – effective date at which employment ceased determined by Commission such that application was lodged within statutory time frame – no further requirement to consider whether extension of time required. Jenkins v Finkelde Group Holdings
July 15, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – identity of employer – overseas corporation – ss.14, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – respondent raised jurisdictional issues including that it had not employed applicant – applicant worked as miner in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in Africa on a fly in fly out (FIFO) basis – applicant signed two employment contracts with Byrnecut Underground Congo SARL (BUCS) but asserted he was recruited in Australia by respondent and paid by them – submitted that employment covered by Mining Industry Award 2010 – applicant further submitted that respondent should be considered employer because of corporate relationship with BUCS – respondent submitted they were part of 35 separate companies in group of companies – submitted that BUCS operated as separate legal entity – Commission considered meaning of ‘national system employer’ in s.14 of FW Act – found applicant employed by BUCS – also found applicant sought employment, signed employment contracts, took directions and was dismissed by BUCS – found applicant described BUCS as employer for taxation purposes – held the role of respondent in applicant’s recruitment, and as the payment agency was undertaken on behalf of BUCS, and could not establish respondent as the employer – Commission found there were a range of discrete entities which operate under the umbrella of the Byrnecut Group – evidence did not establish a single, corporate body which is a national system employer – Commission found that common ownership arrangements cannot be taken to extend FW Act to business which operates under laws in another country – Commission found applicant was an employee of BUCS – BUCS not national system employer and not corporation formed within limits of Commonwealth of Australia – application dismissed. Meagher v Byrnecut Offshore P/L
July 15, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – two applications for unfair dismissal remedy – employee maintained that over a two to three year period he was subject to verbal harassment and physical touching by both applicants – employee exhibited sensitivity to being touched by males as consequence of childhood abuse experiences which caused significant distress – employee did not initially complain to respondent about applicants conduct as he was embarrassed and wished to be left alone – employee eventually raised his concerns with his supervisor – supervisor advised employee to leave the issue alone – employee started to take time off work – employee received show cause letter in respect to absences and his interactions with supervisor – employee made a complaint about applicants conduct to respondent – investigation by respondent found that conduct did occur and was contrary to Code of Practice and Workplace Behaviours Policy – respondent dismissed each of the applicants – found that employee was harassed and humiliated by applicants over a period of time causing employee distress – Commission found applicants had completed the Workplace Behaviours Policy and Standards Q&A and agreed to be bound by the policy – found that both applicants participated in wider workplace culture which targeted vulnerable employee and sought to cast him as social isolate and misfit – held both applicants ought to have appreciated that their conduct was counter-productive to respondent’s business objectives and contributed to an unsafe workplace – conduct was personally, socially and psychologically damaging to employee – found valid reason for dismissal of both applicants – found dismissal not harsh, unjust and unreasonable – the wider circumstances of case did not support strong arguments in mitigation – applications dismissed. Mr R and Mr Y v Toll Holdings Ltd t/a Toll Group
July 15, 2016
RIGHT OF ENTRY – application for permit – conditions – ss.512, 513 Fair Work Act 2009 – application by CFMEU for a right of entry permit for Mr Sutherland – Mr Sutherland currently holds two permits – Commission considered declarations disclosed in application to determine if Mr Sutherland was a fit and proper person to hold permit – CFMEU submitted fact that FWBC did not oppose application a relevant factor – Commission held lack of opposition from FWBC not relevant consideration – Commission did not know reasons why FWBC not opposed to application – Commission noted Mr Sutherland had not completed relevant training and involved in multiple unresolved proceedings that raise important, relevant concerns – proceedings at preliminary point only and no findings of fact made – allegations against Mr Sutherland untested – Commission held Mr Sutherland a fit and proper person to hold permit subject to conditions – permit to be issued. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Queensland Northern Territory Divisional Branch
