TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal – applicant employed as a Warehouse Operator – Christmas party organised by ALDI – held in a private room at a Hotel – costs of the room hire, together with food and drinks, were met by ALDI – applicant dismissed for allegedly throwing a beer glass and its contents in the direction of other employees – intoxication – Commission found misconduct – potentially serious consequences – whether the function can be considered to have been work-related – Keenan considered – found valid reason for dismissal – application dismissed. Vai v ALDI Stores (A Limited Partnership)
July 25, 2018
Victorian WorkCover Authority is in a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) before Commissioner Cribb in Conference Room E and Conference Room F – Level 6 in Melbourne (Srkulj).
July 25, 2018
An application for approval of the Chubb Fire Safety, Alice Springs, Electrical Technicians, Collective Agreement, 2017-2019 (s.185 – Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement) will be heard by Fair Work Commissioner McKenna in hearing Room 12-2- Level 12 in Sydney at 2pm.
July 25, 2018
The queue for a Fair Work Commission hearing has been lengthened by a group of eleven claimants from a single hospital in Melbourne. The full lawlist is: Alternative Spares (Gonzalez), Epworth Health Care (Bosse, Dunong, Godranah, Kedir, Manansala, Nesci, Noel, Schumann, Tomic, Trijo, Whitling), Lek Supply Pty Ltd (Jackman), Alternative Spares (Gonzalez), Autobarn (Renshaw), Davibray Pty Limited T/F B & S CarruthersTrust (Harding), Yardy Legal Pty Limited (Grafenauer), Westpac Banking Corporation (Deng), Toast NSW Pty Ltd (Facer), Australian Federal Police (Budd), Western Sydney University (Darjazini), Sydney Trains (Singh), Allianz Australia Services Pty Limited (Khoury), Coffey Services Australia (Abram), Alternative Spares (Gonzalez), Australian Federal Police (Budd), Denis The Menace (Leighton), Nebo Service Centre (Wellington), Premier Security Group Pty Ltd (McMahon), International SOS (Robertson), Australia for UNHCR (Tamu), ISS Facility Services Australia (Zidov), 4WD Accessory Wholesale Pty Ltd (Constable), Solar Station Alpha Pty Ltd (von Erkel), Dementia Australia Limited (Hopcroft), Hitachi Power Tools Australia (McCloud), BHP Billiton Iron Ore (Smith), SYC Ltd (Trakilovic), Adelaide Plastic Surgery (Smith), Balmain N.B. Corporation Ltd (Paul), Salamander Training Systems Pty Ltd (Renehan), Hawkes Brewing Co Pty Ltd (Langton), Thai Waterfront Restaurant (Inkum), L & P Real Estate Pty Ltd (Nasser), Sydney Trains (Singh), ISS Facility Services (Roberts), City of Perth (Smetherhan), City of Cockburn (McDonald), Serco Australia Pty Ltd (Morgan), Joondalup Hospital Pty Ltd (Bright), Polbak Pty Ltd as Trustee of Polbak Unit Trust (Baker), Ambulance Victoria (Humphrey), Monash Health (Kelmann), Harris McDonald Pty Ltd (Groves), TT Line Company (Shuttleworth), Roads Corporation Victoria (Bartholomew), Victorian WorkCover Authority (Srkulj), Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Latcham), Gippsland & East Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative Ltd (Brown), Western Region Water Corporation (Ciantar).
July 20, 2018
Late filings at the Fair Work Commission have the following applications on today’s hearing list: Mr Arthur Coal Pty Ltd (Cordewener), Hitachi Construction Machinery (Australia) Pty Ltd (Reid & Garland), LEAP Legal Software Pty Limited (Elliott), The Learning Bar Pty Ltd (Baker), G. M. Kane & Sons Pty Ltd (Mobbs), Krav Maga Defence Institute Pty Ltd (Markovitch), Accident Repair Management Pty Ltd (Carboni), Westpac Banking Corporation (Deng), Prosegur Australia (Kukalev), KDR Victoria Pty Ltd (Templeton), Doutta Galla Aged Services Ltd (Infante), Fairfax Media Management (Kalina), M Square Projects Pty Ltd (Parzinkas), Chep Australia Limited (Soriano), Global Wear Solutions Engineering Australia Pty Ltd (Laxman), Excelcare Australia Limited (Millar), Australian Municipal Clerical Services Union Queensland Together Branch (Watson), Smithfield Smash Repairs Pty Ltd (Juras), Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (Keidge), Basin Sands Logistics Pty Ltd (Clayton), Jeremy Lawson P & D (Caughey), Global Wear Solutions Engineering Australia Pty Ltd (Laxman).
July 20, 2018
CASE PROCEDURES – revoke or vary decision – s.603 Fair Work Act 2009 – Full Bench – application to revoke an order made under s.424 terminating industrial action – since late 2014 and until 7 December 2016 The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU), the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and the AMWU (collectively ‘the Unions’), had been bargaining with Esso for a proposed enterprise agreement or agreements that would replace the Esso Gippsland (Longford and Long Island Point) Enterprise Agreement 2011 (Longford & LIP Agreement) and the Esso Offshore Enterprise Agreement 2011 (Offshore Agreement) – the AWU organised, and many of its members engaged in, various forms of industrial action directed against Esso – AWU maintained that all such industrial action was protected industrial action – Esso maintained that aspects of the industrial action were not protected action – disputed industrial action included bans on the performance of equipment testing, air freeing and leak testing – Esso obtained a number of orders from the Commission directed to the AWU stopping unprotected industrial action – obtained an order on 6 March 2015 (IA Order) – in contravention of the IA Order, the AWU continued to organise industrial action – Esso commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia – the Court rejected Esso’s claim – Esso appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court – The Full Court dismissed the appeal on 25 May 2016 – on 21 June 2016, Esso filed in the High Court of Australia, an application for special leave to appeal particular orders of the judgment of the Full Court – on 30 November 2016, the Unions served on Esso notices of intention to take protected industrial action – on 7 December 2016, Vice President Watson made an order to terminate the protected industrial action [PR588352] – the applications giving rise to the Order were made by the Minister for Industrial Relations for the State of Victoria (The Minister) – Esso’s special leave application to the High Court had not, at this stage, been heard – during the course of hearing the Minister’s applications, Esso accepted that the Full Court’s judgment in Esso Australia P/L v Australian Workers’ Union was binding on the Commission at that time – this Full Bench was convened to deal with making an ensuing workplace determination as contemplated by s.266 of the FW Act – on 6 December 2017, the High Court delivered judgment in Esso Australia P/L v The Australian Workers’ Union in which a majority of the Court allowed an appeal by Esso, holding that the industrial action organised by the AWU in relation to a replacement enterprise agreement or agreements for, relevantly the Longford & LIP Agreement and the Offshore Agreement was not protected industrial action subsequent to the AWU’s contravention on 6 March 2015 of the IA Order – Esso has applied under s.603 for an order revoking the Order made by Vice President Watson on 7 December 2016 – The Minister and the Unions oppose revocation – Full Bench held that taking unprotected industrial action should not result in the making of a workplace determination – the discretionary matters which point in favour of the exercise of our discretion to revoke the Order outweigh those going the other way – Order revoked with effect on and from the date on which it was made (7 December 2016) – parties encouraged to engage in immediate discussions with a view to concluding an enterprise agreement to replace the Offshore Agreement – Full Bench prepared to advise the parties in conference as to its views on the likely form of a workplace determination that would have been made – prepared to set out the likely form of a workplace determination that we would have made in a recommendation if the parties provided an indication that they would each accept the recommendation and allow employees the opportunity to vote to approve an enterprise agreement consistent with that recommendation. Esso Australia P/L v “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and Ors
July 20, 2018
ANTI-BULLYING – order to stop bullying issued – s.798FC Fair Work Act 2009 – application for order to stop bullying – decision does not identify parties – applicant is director of company and respondent is Chairman of the Body Corporate Committee for the Complex – applicant complained of bullying conduct consisting largely of excessive emails sent continuously – respondent argued his conduct was reasonable management action underpinned by applicant’s failure to comply with managerial responsibilities – applicant sought order to stop respondent from a range of behaviours – Commission considered evidence – found applicant’s performance providing management services not ideal – found that whilst many issues raised by respondent were reasonable their manner and frequency were not – Commission satisfied behaviour unreasonable and repeated, likely to continue and negatively affecting applicant’s health – order issued dealing with timing, subject matter and content of future emails by respondent. Application by Ms A
July 20, 2018
CASE PROCEDURES – evidence – s.185 Fair Work Act 2009 – application by Metropolitan and Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFESB) for approval of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, United Firefighters Union of Australia, Operational Staff Agreement 2016 – Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation (the Minister) contended that Agreement contains discriminatory and objectionable terms directed at part-time employees and those employees entitled to flexible working arrangements – the Minister and Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) filed submissions and the Minister filed evidentiary material in objection to approval – MFESB and UFU raised objections to the Minister’s and VEOHRC’s material – consideration whether the Minister should be permitted to adduce evidence – UFU and MFESB opposed grant of leave to the Minister to adduce evidence – MFESB did not object to Commission receiving the Minister’s material – consideration of the rules of evidence – consideration of complexity of issue – Commission allowed the Minister to tender material and adduce evidence from witnesses foreshadowed in order to inform itself – issues to be determined in light of all evidence and full argument at scheduled hearing. Application by Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board
