The lawlist for the Fair Work Commission today includes: All Crowd Catering Pty Ltd (Renall), Geelong Collision Care (Aloi), Simplot Australia (Smith), Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Samuel), Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Yazgan), The Entrance Red Bus Services Pty Ltd (Cahill), Eco Facility Services Pty Ltd (Parsons), Ready Workforce (A Division of Chandler Macleod) Pty Ltd (Turner), Rocks Fish ‘n’ Grill (Dhelbai), South Eastern Timber Finishing (Nabi), Caltex Australia Pty Ltd (De Silva), Australian Manpower Services (AMS), Fresh Cheese Co (Aust) Pty Ltd (Viceconte & Condello), Pindan Asset Management Pty Ltd (Jupp), Diving Victoria (Moss Simic), Gucci Australia Pty Ltd (Theodorakis), Empire Built (NSW) Pty Ltd (Buckley), Royal Rehab: The Rehabilitation and Disability Support Network (Usatti), Ferntree Gully Bolts (Hoornweg), Solar Station Alpha Pty Ltd (Von Erkel), Anglicare North Queensland Limited (McEwan), Gatton Bakehouse and Chicken Bar (Qld) Pty Ltd (Olm), Protech Personnel Pty Ltd (Lisle), Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (Richardson), Rampage Properties Group Pty Ltd (McKinley).
May 22, 2018
An application for variation of the Wormald Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast Fire Alarm Service Enterprise Agreement – 2015-2018 (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.
May 22, 2018
Late additions to today’s law list involving unfair dismissal and labour disputes are as follows: Qantas Airways Pty Ltd (Rodl), Panalpina World Transport Pty Ltd (Whysall), Trend Windows and Doors Pty Limited (Bajada), Bluescope Steel Limited (Alag), NCC Concrete Services (Rees), Bluescope Steel Limited (Hernandez), Meyer Shircore & Associates Pty Ltd (Chin), Rondel Medical Group Pty Ltd (Debono), Audi Enterprises Pty Ltd (Caine), Trustee for Maddingley Montessori Centre Unit Trust (Yadav), Best Mix Concrete Pty Ltd (Lang), Canberra Girls Grammar School (Lyons), BRIC Housing Company (Ciurleo), Northside Family Centre Pty Ltd (Ball), Estia Investments Pty Ltd (Walker), Audi Enterprises Pty Ltd (Zintchenko), Catholic Schools Office Wagga Wagga (Roche).
May 18, 2018
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – application to dismiss by employer – deed of settlement – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – respondent submitted two jurisdictional issues: that applicant earned more than high income threshold and that applicant was not dismissed but, rather resigned of own accord – high income threshold jurisdictional objection determined in favour of applicant – Commission found that respondent intended to terminate applicant’s employment due to poor performance but instead offered a month’s pay in exchange for applicant’s resignation – no evidence of repudiatory conduct by respondent – jurisdictional objection upheld – application dismissed. Howell v Linfox Australia P/L
May 18, 2018
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE – stand down – s.526 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to deal with dispute involving stand down – applicant a laboratory technician working for respondent – stood down following production impairment due to catastrophic fire – respondent made arrangements for employees to be relocated to alternate sites and businesses within business group – applicant expressed interest in doing alternate work – accepted temporary secondment as mutton boner on same pay rate – stood down without pay after declining revised offer to remain as mutton boner under the Lobethal Food Process Worker Employee Collective Agreement 2008, which would result in $25,000 reduction in remuneration – Commission considered applicant’s rejection of revised offer not unreasonable as he had contractual entitlement to substantive rate of pay – considered that stand down period beyond two months was excessive – held that standing down applicant was unfair as it is of an ongoing – parties given seven days from date of decision to negotiate remedy, otherwise Commission prepared to issue order for sum equivalent to redundancy payment, notice, loss of remuneration and outstanding annual leave accrual. Ball v Thomas Foods International Murray Bridge P/L
May 18, 2018
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEMENT – incapacity – inherent requirements – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – employment as prison officer terminated on medical grounds – Commission found that applicant unable to perform inherent requirements of his job at time of dismissal based on doctor’s report – applicant cited CSL Limited and submitted that Commission must also have regard to medical information obtained after dismissal – Commission considered that this approach would not be consistent with ‘providing fair go all round’ to allow medical opinion that did not exist at time of dismissal to be used to challenge dismissal – found that applicant’s inability to perform inherent requirements of the job was valid reason for dismissal – application dismissed. Hyde v Serco Australia P/L
May 18, 2018
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – high income threshold – modern award coverage – ss.382(b), 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal – applicant’s earnings exceeded high income threshold – applicant argued he was covered by Level 5 of Clerks – Private Sector Award 2010 – Commission considered applicant’s duties and coverage of award – found that principal duties did not exceed those of an employee covered by the award – held that applicant was person protected from unfair dismissal – jurisdictional objection dismissed. Westall v BMX Limited
May 18, 2018
ANTI-BULLYING – costs – s.789FC Fair Work Act 2009 – application for costs against respondents – appellant submitted that stop bullying applications made against her were vexatious, made without reasonable cause and that each respondent should have been aware that their application had no reasonable prospect of success – sought costs related to legal advice received – respondents noted that appellant was seeking to recover costs that had already been covered by the employer – anti-bullying applications relied on fact that appellant had made ‘bullying complaint’ against each respondent – remainder of alleged incidents of bullying related to actions by employer and their handling of complaint – respondents discontinued applications upon receiving what they ‘mostly sought’ from employer – Commission found that appellant had no control over the investigation which followed the complaint – found that purpose of the applications was to discourage appellant from making any future complaint against respondents – satisfied that respondents did seek ‘collateral advantage’ in making their applications of the type referred to in Carter – satisfied that applications made vexatiously – found that Mr Dixon and Mr Jewell did not demonstrate that appellant had engaged in any repeated bullying behaviour – Ms Sherlock identified some conduct of appellant which raised some basis for her application – satisfied that Mr Dixon and Mr Jewell should have known that their applications were made without reasonable cause – costs considered – presumption that each party will bear its own legal costs – found that appellant accepted offer of $5000 from employer towards legal costs with no obligation to repay – applications for costs dismissed. King v Jewell and Ors
