In Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (hereafter Romero), the Full Federal Court of Australia was asked to determine whether a workplace policy forms part of the employment relationship, that is, aspirational or contractual in nature? As the case demonstrates, this will depend on the particular factual circumstances of the employment relationship.
The Australian Hotels Association, Accommodation Association of Australia and Pharmacy Guild have withdrawn their proposals to change the term ‘penalty rates’ to ‘additional remuneration’, ahead of a further hearing on the weekend and public holidays penalty rates case.
Far from a mining company’s smoking gun, a recent decision of the Federal Court restrained an employer from using secret footage of an employee making “adverse” and “colourful” remarks about it as part of its subsequent disciplinary investigation.
When it comes to employment litigation and discovery, the protection afforded privilege documents is a hot topic- at least it was in the recent Supreme Court scuffle between Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria and Country Fire Authority.
In what has proven to be something of an ongoing saga for BHP Coal Pty Ltd (“BHP Coal”), the Full Federal Court has confirmed the mining giant’s right to dismiss an employee for refusing to see a company doctor.
In October 2013, a large boom collapsed on a New South Wales construction site, seriously injuring the director of Regal Contracting – a company which the Principal, Rawson Homes, had contracted to assist with excavation work.
For many employers, drug-testing is an absolute must. Difficulties arise, however, in instituting drug-testing policies in the work place. In a recent case involving an employee of the pathology giants, Dorevitch Pathology, the Fair Work Commission (“FWC”) shed some light on the ‘best practice’ for employers looking to perform these drug tests.