An application for variation of the National Fire Solutions (Vic) Pty Ltd and CEPU – Plumbing Division (Vic) Fire Protection Service Agreement 2016-2020 (s.210 – Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement) will be determined by Fair Work Deputy President Gostencnik in his Melbourne chambers at 12.15pm.
June 1, 2018
Twenty-three unfair dismissal/labour dispute applicants will today seek a Fair Work Commission resolution. The list is: Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Limited & Burton (Kerslake), ANZ Banking Group Limited (Miao), NA Group Pty Ltd (Bittar), Just Cuts Warringah Mall (Kazim), Australian Concert & Entertainment Security Pty Ltd (Magpayo), Australian Health Professionals (Kerrigan), ZHS Australia Pty Ltd (Halablian), Finance Sector Union of Australia (Sacco), Hall Industries Australia Pty Ltd (Zotti), Barker College (Schmidt), CSBP Limited (Johnson), Sensis Pty Ltd (Teasdale), Emergence Services Telecommunications Authority – ESTA (Bent), Minnis & Samson Pty Ltd (Porter), Atomic Advantage Pty Ltd (Williams), Arthur J Gallagher & Co (Aust) Limited (Banks), MSS Security (Fox), Virgin Australia International Airlines Pty Ltd (Piebiak), Bertram Physiotherapy (Stevenson), Workskil Australia (Fletcher), Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Culbertson), Hitachi Construction Machinery (Australia) Pty Lt (King), Programmed Skilled Workforce (and related bodies corporate within the Programmed Group of Companies) (Fitzpatrick).
June 1, 2018
CASE PROCEDURES – stay order – s.604 Fair Work Act 2009 – appeal – at first instance Commission found dismissal was unfair and ordered compensation of $22,882.00 to be paid to respondent within 21 days – appellant sought stay of order pending appeal – grounds of appeal included issue of valid notice of termination and error in calculating compensation – Vice President found the fact that the notice was defective in respect of s.117(1) of FW Act did not mean that it was ineffective to terminate the employment – ground concerning quantification of compensation arguable with reasonable prospects of success – found balance of convenience very slightly favoured the grant of a stay – amount of compensation reasonably large – appellant only a small business – stay order issued. Appeal by Chesson P/L t/a Pay Per Click against decision of Cambridge C of 1 May 2018 [[2018] FWC 2080] Re: Knutson
June 1, 2018
ANTI-BULLYING – reasonable management action – s.789FD Fair Work Act 2009 – alleged bullying by employer in placing applicant on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – applicant claimed PIP was unwarranted as his performance was not deficient – Commission rejected contention of bullying – found that PIP was enacted in a genuine attempt to improve applicant’s performance – application dismissed. Blagojevic v AGL Macquarie P/L and Anor
June 1, 2018
CASE PROCEDURES – referral to Full Bench – ss.184, 185, 615, Fair Work Act 2009 – application by the Minister to have the application for the approval of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board & United Firefighters Union Operation Staff Agreement 2016 (Agreement) referred to a Full Bench under s.615A of the FW Act – Collinsville Coal Operations P/L considered – Minster submitted that the Commission could not be satisfied that the agreement does not include any unlawful terms – Commission held that even if it cannot be satisfied that the Agreement does not contain unlawful terms by reason of the matters raised by the Minister, it would be open to the Commission to approve the Agreement pursuant to s.190 by accepting undertakings – held this operates to diminish the significance of the issues raised by the Minister – Commission considered that any issue about appropriate undertakings could more efficiently be deal with by a single member than a Full Bench – application rejected. Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board
June 1, 2018
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – minimum employment period – associated entities – ss.22, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – respondent submitted applicant was previously employed by Combined Communications Group Ply Ltd (CCG) which was placed into administration in late 2017 – subsequent to CCG going into administration (but before its liquidation) the applicant was employed by respondent on or about 3 December 2017 – applicant dismissed by respondent on 2 February 2018 – respondent submitted that it and CCG are independent and separate entities and that the employment of the applicant cannot be characterised as continuous service – Commission found that respondent and CCG were not related bodies corporate – found minimum employment period not completed – application dismissed. Wilson v AMN Challenge P/L t/a AMN Challenge
June 1, 2018
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – Small Business Fair Dismissal Code – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal – applicant summarily dismissed allegation of serious misconduct including aggressive and demeaning behaviour – respondent was small business – Small Business Fair Dismissal Code considered – Commission satisfied respondent held reasonable belief that applicant’s conduct sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal – respondent conducted investigation and provided applicant opportunity to respond to allegations – Code complied with – application dismissed. Cachia v Scobel P/L atf the S & I Trust t/a Emerse Skin & Laser
June 1, 2018
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – identity of employer – ss.311, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – correct identity of the employer – whether second respondent true employer – no express contract between applicant and second respondent – no transfer of business – whether contract should be implied – no proper basis to infer new contract existed with second respondent – whether corporate veil should be lifted and the different corporate entities set aside to find second respondent true employer – based upon limited material before the Commission correct identity of the employer found to be first respondent – resignation – whether dismissal at initiative of first respondent – 5 week period of notice given by applicant – employer later intervened to terminate the employment immediately – intervening event constituted dismissal at initiative of employer – Commission found dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable – ordered compensation of $7,848. McCulloch v ACN 165 180 503 P/L t/a Blackwood Fitness; Forward Half P/L t/a Blackwood Fitness
