Search Results

A major victory for wage justice and accountability has been achieved, with the Federal Court approving a $174 million settlement between the Victorian Government and more than 12,800 junior doctors who were systematically denied payment for overtime hours worked. This landmark decision highlights the continuing issue of unpaid labour in Australia’s public health system and reaffirms the critical role of collective advocacy in holding employers to account. The settlement resolves thirty separate class actions brought by the Australian Salaried Medical Officers’ Federation (ASMOF) on behalf of junior doctors across Victoria. The doctors alleged that they were routinely directed to work additional hours without pay while performing essential duties such as ward rounds, handovers, and preparing for medical procedures. Junior Doctors Secure $174 Million Settlement Over Unpaid Overtime Under the approved terms: $135 million will be distributed among affected doctors, averaging approximately $11,700 each $20.8 million will cover legal fees for the applicants $17.5 million will be allocated to the administration and distribution of payments $430,000 will reimburse the lead applicants, including $175,000 for ASMOF Justice John Snaden approved the agreement “on the papers,” concluding that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the interests of all group members. Recognition of Industrial Advocacy For the first time in Australia, a professional association such as ASMOF has been awarded a reimbursement payment for its representative role in legal proceedings. Justice Snaden stated there was “no reason to treat ASMOF any differently from a corporate entity” that brings a representative proceeding on behalf of its members and others. This recognition of an industrial association’s contribution represents a pivotal step in strengthening collective representation and acknowledges the public benefit derived from advocacy organisations pursuing justice for underpaid workers. The Bolton Precedent This settlement follows an earlier decision in Australian Salaried Medical Officers’ Federation v Peninsula Health, where trainee doctor Dr Gaby Bolton successfully claimed compensation for unpaid overtime between 2019 and 2021. In that case, Justice Mordy Bromberg condemned Peninsula Health’s conduct as demonstrating a “highly irresponsible attitude” toward its legal obligations, ordering the organisation to pay a $316,260 penalty to ASMOF’s Victorian branch. Dr Bolton will now receive a $75,000 reimbursement for her leadership role in the class action, in addition to her earlier compensation. The Avoided Burden of Continued Litigation Justice Snaden noted that, without this settlement, up to twenty-nine separate cases would likely have proceeded to trial, requiring complex individual assessments of working conditions, authorisations for overtime, and contractual obligations across multiple health services. He emphasised that the “cost and time involved in such an undertaking cannot be overstated,” acknowledging that the settlement provides timely and equitable redress without burdening the courts or prolonging hardship for affected workers. Broader Implications for Wage Justice This result follows similar actions across Australia, with New South Wales Health settling for $230 million and the ACT Government agreeing to $31.5 million in comparable unpaid overtime disputes. The cumulative effect of these cases underscores a growing recognition that systemic underpayment within public institutions cannot be ignored or excused under claims of budgetary restraint or administrative oversight. The message to employers is clear: wage theft, regardless of its form or scale, will attract significant financial and reputational consequences. 1800ADVOCATES’ Perspective This case exemplifies the importance of standing up collectively against systemic exploitation. For years, junior doctors have endured long hours under immense pressure, with limited avenues for recourse. Their courage in pursuing justice through the courts demonstrates the strength of solidarity and the necessity of industrial advocacy. 1800ADVOCATES supports workers across all industries who face similar challenges—whether through unpaid overtime, forced resignations, or adverse action following the exercise of workplace rights. As this case shows, accountability is possible when workers unite and demand fairness. While the Victorian Government did not admit liability, the magnitude of the settlement speaks volumes. It stands as a reminder that every hour worked deserves to be paid, and every worker deserves respect for their contribution. For information about workplace rights or support in addressing underpayment or adverse action, contact 1800ADVOCATES or visit 1800advocates.au .

By 1800ADVOCATES For over thirty years, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) has been one of Australia’s most powerful workers’ organisations. Yet its legacy is marred by repeated findings of intimidation, criminal infiltration and corruption—harking back to the hard-edged cultures of the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) and the maritime union battles of the 1970s. Today, perhaps nowhere is that historical shadow darker than in Queensland, where an entrenched cycle of threats and violence has prompted a fresh inquiry by the union’s Administrator, Mark Irving KC. A Legacy of Coercion Royal Commissions in 1992, 2003 and 2015 each catalogued “lawlessness and violence” in construction sites nationwide, often linked to union officials binding employers by force rather than negotiation. In Victoria, Geoffrey Watson SC’s interim report in September 2024 documented notorious incidents—one organiser videotaped threatening to “**** take your soul… rip your **** head off” and, on 30 June 2021, two organisers bashed so badly one lost sight in an eye, only to be “negotiated” by underworld fixer Mick Gatto rather than reported to police. The CFMEU at a Crossroads: Menace in Queensland and the Road Ahead Queensland’s Menacing Culture On 8 February 2025, Administrator Irving launched a dedicated inquiry  into “violence and menacing conduct within the construction industry in Queensland” . He observed: “A culture of violence—actual and threatened—within the construction industry makes the Union weaker, not stronger. In the years leading to the Administration the Union in Queensland has… failed to confront a culture of violence and retaliation… against organisers and… delegates” . This is no mere formality. The inquiry will examine both employer and union-linked threats, the “blacklist” mentality that punishes dissent, and the persistent code of silence that brands whistle-blowers as “rats” or “dogs.” It reflects an urgent need to sever links with Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMCGs) and organised crime figures who have flourished under this cover of impunity . Why It Matters Safety and Rights : When violence replaces dialogue, workers’ rights to fair pay and safe conditions are held hostage. Victorian justice found the CFMEU had “deliberately strategised” to use threats as industrial leverage . Queensland must not be allowed to follow suit. Member Trust : Repeated fines—over 1,100 breaches and $10 million in penalties in five years—and the pattern of “collateral cost” prosecutions have eroded members’ faith. A union that tolerates violence cannot claim to represent its rank-and-file or defend their interests effectively. Industry Integrity : Builders, subcontractors and project owners equally suffer under “stand-over” tactics. When legitimate employers feel compelled to engage “standover” men, the entire sector pays in higher costs, delays and reputational damage. The Road Ahead Administrator Irving’s bi-annual report sets out clear objectives: Menacing Conduct Policy A zero-tolerance stance has been codified: all CFMEU employees must comply with a “no menace” policy, with disciplinary action for violators . Integrity & Whistle-blowing Unit An independent portal now allows anonymous reporting of threats and corruption. Early triage ensures serious allegations reach police, regulators or internal investigators promptly . Law-Enforcement Partnerships For too long union officers saw police as adversaries. Building cooperative relationships with Queensland Police, the Australian Federal Police and regulatory bodies is now a stated priority . Targeted Inquiries Beyond broader cultural reforms, specific probe areas include: Identifying incidents of threats, assaults or baseless blacklisting. Exposing any quid-pro-quo ties to OMCGs. Auditing enterprise bargaining approvals to root out corrupt inducements. Democratic Renewal Strengthening election rules for delegates and Organiser appointments—currently too easily manipulated—will dilute the Executive’s grip and empower members to hold their leaders accountable . Conclusion The CFMEU’s strength has always lain in unity—workers standing together for safer conditions and fair rewards. Yet that unity is undermined when fear supplants solidarity. Queensland’s construction sites should be battlegrounds for better wages, not sites of intimidation. By confronting menacing conduct head-on, forging real partnerships with law enforcement, and restoring internal democracy, the CFMEU can begin to reclaim its purpose: serving members, safeguarding rights, and rebuilding respect in an industry too long beset by its darkest impulses.

The Fair Work Commission has again reinforced that employers are entitled to take decisive action when employee conduct places lives at risk. In Murphy v Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) [2025] FWC 2286 , Deputy President Masson dismissed an unfair dismissal claim brought by a Victorian surveillance operative who was sacked after a reckless car pursuit during a covert operation. Why the FWC Backed IBAC’s Dismissal The Incident In May 2024, during a covert IBAC operation, a Mercedes not connected to the investigation backed into a colleague’s car. When the driver attempted to flee, surveillance operative Brent Murphy decided to follow. Although Murphy denied it was a “chase,” he admitted making an illegal right-hand turn across a median strip and lost sight of the vehicle soon after. His superior observed him travelling “at speed” in close pursuit and reported the incident. Murphy later accused his superior of “stitching him up” and lodged a bullying complaint. However, IBAC alleged he had both driven recklessly and provided a false account of events, breaching multiple internal policies and road safety rules. IBAC’s Investigation and Dismissal An external investigator found Murphy had prioritised chasing the Mercedes over checking on his colleague’s welfare. IBAC concluded this showed poor judgment inconsistent with the maturity and discipline required of operatives, and dismissed him with four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. The Commission’s Findings Deputy President Masson found: Murphy’s remarks about the driver being a “crook” or “shitbag” revealed he was motivated by anger, not instinct. His illegal right-hand turn in a dark suburban street placed pedestrians and the public at imminent risk. His claim that it was a “misjudgement” displayed “an impressive lack of insight.” His account to HR was “patently false and misleading,” compounding the misconduct. The Commission ruled that his behaviour constituted serious misconduct, providing a valid reason for dismissal. The decision was not “harsh, unjust or unreasonable” under section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 . Lessons for Employers and Employees This case underscores several principles: Safety trumps instinct.  Employees, particularly in high-risk or sensitive roles, must always act within legal and organisational boundaries, even under pressure. Policies matter.  IBAC’s surveillance and vehicle usage policies were decisive—both made clear that safety and compliance with the law are paramount. False statements worsen outcomes.  Attempting to reframe events or make accusations against colleagues without evidence will rarely succeed before the Commission. Serious misconduct = valid dismissal.  Where behaviour places the public or colleagues at risk, dismissal is likely to be upheld. The decision illustrates the FWC’s unwillingness to excuse reckless behaviour simply because it occurs in a high-pressure role. It is a warning that even in covert operations, the rule of law and road safety obligations cannot be suspended.

The case of Irving v Pfingst & Anor [2021] QCA 280 is one of the most sobering reminders in Queensland’s legal history of what happens when the justice system loses sight of its most basic obligations: fairness, truth, and the protection of individual rights. At the heart of this case was Terry Irving, a man who spent more than four and a half years in prison for an armed robbery he did not commit. His name was tied to one of the most serious offences in the criminal calendar – the violent robbery of a Cairns bank – not because of irrefutable evidence, but because of a deeply flawed police investigation and the misuse of prosecutorial power. Irving’s imprisonment and the malicious prosecution that sustained it represent not only a personal tragedy but also a systemic violation of human rights. A Life Taken Hostage In 1993, Detective Senior Constable Helen Maree Pfingst charged Irving with being an accessory after the fact to a bank robbery. The charge was extraordinary in its weakness: it alleged that a man named Wayne Suthers was the robber, despite the complete absence of evidence linking Suthers to the crime. What followed was a devastating sequence of events. The accessory charge provided the justification to keep Irving locked away while police shifted their focus to building a case that he himself was the robber. Eventually, Irving was convicted of armed robbery, sentenced, and imprisoned for years – until the High Court intervened in 1997, finding he had not been given a fair trial. By that time, the damage was done. Years of liberty were stripped from him, his reputation destroyed, his mental and emotional wellbeing fractured. No amount of legal redress could return what had been lost. Malicious Prosecution and Human Rights The Queensland Court of Appeal ultimately recognised what Irving had endured: that the accessory charge had been laid without reasonable or probable cause and with malice. This was not simply an error of judgement. It was the deliberate use of the criminal law as a weapon, not to seek justice but to keep a man in custody under a false pretext. The court’s finding is profound. Malicious prosecution is one of the clearest ways the law acknowledges when state power is abused. It exposes the stark imbalance between an individual citizen and the immense machinery of police and prosecution. Malicious Prosecution and the Price of Injustice: The Case of Terry Irving For Irving, it meant being branded a criminal when the evidence simply did not exist. For society, it exposes the fragility of rights we often take for granted – the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be arbitrarily punished. The Emotional Toll of a Broken System Cases like Irving’s are not just about legal definitions. They are about human lives. Imagine waking up every day in a prison cell, knowing you should not be there. Imagine pleading your innocence, only to be met with disbelief, suspicion, and silence. Imagine watching years of your life slip away – family, career, dignity – while the truth sits buried under official narratives and courtroom failures. This is the lived reality of wrongful imprisonment. It is not only a failure of law but a profound cruelty that erodes trust in justice itself. Lessons for Justice and Accountability The Irving case forces us to ask uncomfortable questions: How many other people have been prosecuted on flimsy grounds, their lives reshaped by suspicion rather than evidence? What safeguards are in place to prevent police from using charges as investigative tools rather than lawful responses to evidence? How do we repair the trust that is shattered when the state violates the very rights it is sworn to protect? Accountability is not just about awarding damages – though Irving now has the right to seek them. It is about ensuring systemic reform so that no one else suffers the same fate. Police powers must always be exercised with integrity, restraint, and respect for human dignity. A Call for Vigilance The case of Irving v Pfingst is a haunting reminder that the law’s power can be misused and that when it is, the consequences are catastrophic. Terry Irving’s story is not only his own – it is a warning to all of us that rights must be vigilantly guarded. Every wrongful prosecution, every wrongful conviction, is not only a wound to the individual but a stain on the justice system itself. If the law is not anchored in fairness, then it becomes a tool of oppression rather than a shield of protection. Irving’s suffering underscores the need for constant vigilance: from courts, from watchdogs, from citizens, and from those within the justice system who must never forget that their first duty is to truth, fairness, and humanity.

Australia’s workplace relations system is meant to resolve disputes through evidence, negotiation, and impartial decision-making. At its heart sits the Fair Work Commission (FWC), a tribunal that thousands of workers and employers rely on every year. But what happens when participants reject reasoned outcomes and instead embrace threats, intimidation, and outright violence? Two very different but connected stories reveal the danger: the shocking case of an Oracle data technician who threatened to torch the Commission itself, and the disgraceful pattern of lawlessness uncovered within the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU). Together they show how intimidation not only discredits individual grievances but corrodes faith in the institutions designed to uphold workplace justice. When Workers Cross the Line: The Oracle Case, the CFMEU, and the Poisoning of Workplace Justice The Oracle Worker: From Frustration to Fury In Application by Sajjad Nasir [2025] FWC 2470 (21 August 2025) , the Commission and later the High Court dealt with a dismissed Oracle employee whose behaviour escalated beyond the bounds of law. The dismissal: His employment ended in November 2022. The first claim: A general protections application was lodged in March 2023 but abandoned after conciliation failed. Further attempts: He tried again, filing multiple applications, but they were either late, incomplete, or struck out. Appeals dismissed: Both the Commission’s Full Bench and the High Court rejected his appeals. Suppression bid: Frustrated, he sought to have decisions removed from the public record and his identity suppressed. The Commission rejected this too. Rather than accept the rulings, the worker made a chilling threat: he would burn down the Commission building with the presiding member still inside . A provisional apprehended violence order (AVO) was issued to protect the member. The High Court later dismissed the worker’s challenges as an “abuse of process”, making it clear that threats of violence are no substitute for legal argument. Violence as a Tactic: Not Just One Case While this Oracle case stands out for its extremity, the tactic of threats and intimidation is sadly not unique. Recent investigations into the CFMEU’s operations across Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland paint a disturbing picture: A cycle of lawlessness: Violence was described as “an accepted part of the culture” where intimidation replaced negotiation. Ties to organised crime: Outlaw motorcycle gangs and underworld figures were found to have infiltrated union delegate ranks, leveraging fear to control outcomes. Targeting opponents: In Queensland, union officials threatened not just rival unions and contractors, but women and children, with one case involving an official barking at a female safety officer and calling her a “c--- dog”. Abuse of process: The CFMEU has racked up more than 2,600 convictions and $28 million in fines over two decades, with judges noting fines were treated as a mere cost of doing business. The parallel with the Oracle worker is stark. When people use violence or threats instead of arguments and evidence, they are not engaging with the system—they are undermining it. The Broader Danger: Poisoning Workplace Justice What connects the Oracle case and the CFMEU investigations is not just the misconduct itself, but the damage it causes to everyone else. Eroding safety: Commission members, court staff, inspectors, and rival unionists have faced abuse and even death threats. No one should fear for their lives simply for carrying out their duties. Wasting resources: Repeated, baseless claims—whether from one disgruntled worker or a powerful union—drain the system, delaying justice for others with genuine disputes. Destroying credibility: The Oracle worker’s threats destroyed any sympathy for his dismissal. Similarly, the CFMEU’s thuggery has damaged not just its own standing but the credibility of the union movement as a whole. The Line That Cannot Be Crossed The Fair Work Commission, like all institutions, is imperfect. Workers often feel it favours large employers, and reforms are always debated. But none of that justifies crossing the line into threats or violence. President Adam Hatcher was right to stress that suppression orders are not a remedy for dissatisfaction. Likewise, the CFMEU administrator has emphasised that intimidation weakens the union and betrays the very workers it claims to represent. If open justice and fair process are abandoned, workplace disputes risk being settled not by evidence and law, but by who shouts loudest—or who threatens hardest. That is not a system of justice. That is anarchy. Conclusion: Respecting the System, Demanding Better The Oracle case and the CFMEU scandals serve as blunt reminders. Workers and unions must respect the rule of law, even when outcomes are disappointing. Anger, threats, and violence are not tools of advocacy—they are weapons of destruction. The challenge for Australia’s workplace relations future is twofold: Reform the system to make it more accessible, transparent, and fair, so workers do not feel forced into hopeless battles. Draw the line firmly against intimidation, ensuring that violence never has a seat at the bargaining table Only then can the Commission, unions, and employers work together in a way that genuinely protects rights without poisoning the process.

At 1800ADVOCATES  we recognise that pursuing an unfair dismissal claim in the Fair Work Commission can feel daunting, especially when workers are unsure about the costs involved. While most people want full representation from start to finish, others may only need help with particular steps along the way. To meet this need, we are introducing a new and innovative way to engage our services – a flexible stage-based fee structure. This allows you to select only the stages of work you require, while still having the reassurance of professional advocacy. New Flexible Engagement Options for Unfair Dismissal Fair Work Matters Our full representation service remains available at a fixed total of $3,850. However, with this flexible model, you can now choose individual stages of the unfair dismissal process: Initial assessment and strategy session – $550 A careful and comprehensive review of your situation, eligibility, and potential remedies under the Fair Work Act. Drafting and lodging the application – $770 Preparation and submission of your unfair dismissal application (Form F2) to the Fair Work Commission. Response review and written submissions – $880 Review of the employer’s response, identification of key issues, and preparation of submissions. Conciliation preparation – $660 Drafting an opening statement, reviewing supporting material, and ensuring you are ready for the conference. Conciliation representation – $990 Advocacy on your behalf at the conciliation, negotiating settlement terms, and reviewing the deed of settlement. When combined, these stages add up to the full-service fee of $3,850. However, you now have the option of engaging us only for the stages that matter most to you, providing greater choice and control. It is important to note that this is not an offer of legal services or legal advice. We do not act as solicitors. We provide our services strictly as professional employment and human rights advocates, committed to supporting workers through a fair and transparent process. This flexible engagement option reflects our commitment to making advocacy accessible to everyone. It empowers workers to seek the level of assistance they need without unnecessary cost, while ensuring that they receive strong and dedicated support where it matters most. We may also be able to offer a similar service flexibility to other matters before the Fair Work Commission or Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals with an intention to develop a similar range of flexibility options for workers compensation appeals in the near future. If you believe you have been unfairly dismissed, or if you wish to learn more about this flexible engagement model, contact 1800ADVOCATES  today. Disclaimer 1800ADVOCATES  is not a law firm and does not provide legal services or legal advice. We act strictly as professional employment and human rights advocates. All information provided is for advocacy and support purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.

When an estranged child escalates online: protecting yourself and your family Estrangement is heartbreaking. It’s also complex: grief sits alongside love, and hope collides with harm. When an estranged child begins stalking you online and escalating to threats, the priority must shift to immediate safety for you and any other children in your household. In Australia, stalking is a criminal offence, including persistent unwanted contact and monitoring, whether offline or online. If the behaviour escalates or you feel unsafe, it is reasonable to involve police to protect yourself and your family. When an estranged child escalates online: protecting yourself and your family What online stalking looks like Online stalking (often called cyberstalking) can include: repeated unwanted messages, emails, calls or tags• creating new profiles to evade blocks, or using others to contact you monitoring and tracking via shared accounts, cloud photo libraries or location-sharing• doxxing, public shaming, or threats to publish private material impersonation or contacting your employer, relatives, friends or your other children’s school to harass or destabilise you Key warning signs of escalation Take particular care if you notice any of the following: threats of violence or self‑harm turning up in person after online monitoring doxxing, threats to leak intimate images, or persistent identity spoofing fixation on your whereabouts, your other children, or your routines These behaviours are serious and should be documented. The eSafety Commissioner recommends preserving evidence (screenshots, URLs, timestamps) before removal requests, to support any report to platforms, eSafety or police. Immediate safety steps you can take today Stop engaging; start documenting Do not argue, explain or negotiate. Take dated screenshots of messages, profiles, and call logs, and export platform data where possible. Save files in more than one place. The eSafety guidance explains how to capture and store evidence safely. Lock down accounts and devices Change passwords and enable multi‑factor authentication on email, social media, banking and cloud storage. Check for shared devices , shared photo streams, and location sharing (e.g. Find My, Google Location, Snap Map). Consider creating fresh, private contact channels reserved for trusted family and critical services only. If the online harassment is seriously harmful, you can also report adult cyber abuse to the eSafety Commissioner for potential takedown action. Brief your household and your children’s schoolExplain to other children—age appropriately—that some adults act in unsafe ways online and that they must not respond to any contact attempts or share locations. Ask schools, childcare, sports clubs and relevant carers to hold your updated contact instructions and alert you to any attempted contact. Plan for in‑person safetyAgree on a simple code word for the household that signals “go to the safety plan”. Keep doors and vehicles secured, vary routines if necessary, and let trusted neighbours know to call for help if they observe concerning behaviour. When it’s time to involve police Trust your instincts. If there is an immediate threat to your safety, call Triple Zero (000). For non‑urgent police assistance in Australia, you can contact the Police Assistance Line on 131 444, which operates across multiple states and territories. You can also report through your local police if that is easier for you. Why this step matters Stalking is a crime; reporting creates an official record and enables police to intervene and advise on protective options. Having an incident number helps if further incidents occur or if platforms and services request verification of risk. A one‑time boundary message you can use If you choose to send any message at all, make it once, brief, and final. Then disengage, preserve evidence and tighten safety settings. Sample message "I acknowledge our estrangement and the pain that sits with it. Your online contact and threats are unsafe and must stop. I am protecting myself and my other children. There is no coming back from your previous conduct. I wish you well for your future, but I am not going to be part of that. Do not contact me again." After sending this (once), block and mute all known channels, and keep evidence of any further attempts to contact you. If threats continue or escalate, contact police. Protecting your other children Explain boundaries simply: “We don’t reply; we tell a safe adult.” Review their device privacy, app permissions and friend lists. Ask schools and care providers to restrict information and enforce pick‑up lists. Encourage help‑seeking: Kids Helpline offers confidential 24/7 support for young people and for the adults who care for them. If the abuse is online, use the eSafety pathway The Online Safety Act strengthens protections against serious online abuse. eSafety can direct platforms to remove seriously harmful content and provides step‑by‑step reporting guides and evidence tips. Preserve evidence first, then follow the reporting flow for adult cyber abuse. Where to find confidential support right now 000 if you are in immediate danger. For non‑urgent matters, Police Assistance Line 131 444. 1800RESPECT for confidential counselling and safety support relating to family and domestic violence. Lifeline 13 11 14 for crisis support and suicide prevention. MensLine Australia 1300 78 99 78 for men’s counselling, including around family violence (using or experiencing). Kids Helpline 1800 551 800 for children and young people, and guidance for parents and carers. Closing note It is compassionate to hope for reconciliation, but it is responsible to draw a hard line when behaviour becomes unsafe. You can hold both truths: wishing them well, and refusing to participate in the harm. If that line is crossed again, involve police to protect yourself and your other children. Web search results you provided (14 August 2025) Living with a Broken Heart: Are You Estranged from Your Child? Guidance for parents navigating estrangement, including communication ideas and coping strategies drawn from parenting practice. How to cope when your adult child cuts you out of their life A parent‑focused blog outlining coping steps after an adult child initiates estrangement, with emphasis on self‑care and rebuilding routines. it must be child‑focused, polite, and limited to two ... A Facebook group discussion thread where members suggest documenting concerns and writing to police; informal peer advice rather than official guidance. A parent responds to “Unwanted Contact Is Not Stalking” An opinion piece from a parent’s perspective debating how unwanted contact may constitute stalking; anecdotal and reflective in tone. Shining a torch on the bleakness of parental alienation An Australian family law firm’s article discussing parental alienation concepts and how they arise in legal disputes. Are you “stalking” an estranged adult child? A blog post cautioning parents against monitoring estranged adult children online and exploring why it may be counter‑productive. When to Call the Police on Your Child – Empowering Parents Parenting advice about situations where calling police may be necessary for safety, with practical scenarios. What to do When Someone is Mean to Your Child A personal blog post offering general responses when a child is mistreated; not specifically about estrangement or stalking. Stalking intensifying: what do I do?! : r/EstrangedAdultKids A Reddit thread with peer suggestions for managing escalating stalking, including contacting local police; community advice, not official policy. Stalking | victimsofcrime.vic.gov.au Official Victorian information on stalking as a crime, examples of behaviour, safety planning and how to report.

Australia’s workers deserve a voice that is strong, independent, and laser-focused on protecting their rights. For too long, parts of the union movement have been consumed by scandal, factional power plays, and a culture of pseudo-politics that has nothing to do with the real issues workers face at work.

On 10 July 2025, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) handed down a significant decision, overturning the unfair dismissal of Roland Barber, a truck driver with Veolia Recycling and Recovery Pty Ltd. This case underscores crucial principles of procedural fairness and proportionality in workplace dismissals. Background of the Case Roland Barber, a delegate of the Transport Workers' Union (TWU) and a health and safety representative, faced dismissal after returning a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) reading of 0.013% at 3:38 AM, and subsequently 0.007% at 4:22 AM, before starting his 4:15 AM shift. FWC Overturns Dismissal of Truck Driver for Low-Level Alcohol Reading: Case Assessment and Implications Mr. Barber had attended a TWU function the night before. Initially, Commissioner Sarah McKinnon upheld the dismissal, citing previous unrelated incidents, including minor traffic offences and alleged breaches of confidentiality, as additional justification for termination. However, Barber challenged the dismissal on grounds of procedural unfairness. He argued that Veolia's dismissal relied on reasons not adequately disclosed to him, and which he had no fair opportunity to address. Crucially, Barber also contended that his personal circumstances, along with his commitment to future compliance with company policies, made the dismissal disproportionately harsh. FWC Full Bench Decision The FWC Full Bench, composed of Vice President Mark Gibian, Deputy Presidents Nicholas Lake, and Tony Slevin, allowed Barber’s appeal, identifying significant procedural errors by Commissioner McKinnon. Specifically, they found that Veolia had failed to properly notify Barber of all reasons for dismissal and did not provide him adequate opportunity to respond to certain allegations. This breach of procedural fairness was significant enough to impact the outcome of the initial hearing. The Bench noted that although Barber’s alcohol breach (0.007% BAC) was a valid reason for concern, the low level, combined with his previously unblemished 16-year service record, his genuine remorse, and the practical measures proposed to prevent recurrence, warranted a disciplinary response less severe than dismissal. Consequently, the Full Bench ruled that reinstatement, not termination, was the proportionate disciplinary response. They directed Veolia to reinstate Barber with continuity of employment and requested submissions regarding the calculation of backpay. Analysis and Implications This case reinforces critical elements employers must observe in disciplinary processes: Procedural Fairness:  Employers must clearly communicate all reasons for dismissal, allowing the employee adequate opportunity to respond. Failure to do so can invalidate an otherwise justifiable dismissal. Proportionality of Response:  Termination should be carefully considered against the seriousness of the misconduct and other relevant circumstances, including employee tenure, past conduct, and efforts toward corrective action. Documentation and Clarity:  Employers should ensure allegations and reasons for disciplinary actions are thoroughly documented, clear, and transparent, to uphold fairness and legal compliance. For unions and employees, this case underscores the importance of challenging procedural shortcomings and seeking fair and proportionate outcomes, even when some degree of misconduct is established. Conclusion The FWC Full Bench decision in Barber v Veolia Recycling and Recovery Pty Ltd [2025] FWCFB 141 highlights essential considerations around procedural fairness and proportionality in unfair dismissal cases. The ruling provides clear guidance for employers on conducting disciplinary proceedings in a fair and balanced manner, while also offering reassurance to employees that genuine procedural errors can result in successful reinstatement. This case serves as a critical reminder to organisations: dismissal must be both fair and proportionate, with thorough consideration given to the employee’s history, personal circumstances, and willingness to comply moving forward.

Published by 1800ADVOCATES — Your Voice in Workplace Justice In a stinging rebuke of employer misconduct, the Federal Circuit and Family Court has ruled that Hisense Australia Pty Ltd unlawfully dismissed a long-serving employee after he pursued unpaid wages and questioned company practices. The judgment, delivered by Judge Catherine Symons in Naskovski v Hisense Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 943 , exposes systemic failures in Hisense’s internal processes and condemns the company’s HR manager for engaging in a campaign of intimidation and procedural unfairness that culminated in the worker’s dismissal. The case offers a critical precedent on the protections afforded to employees under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) , particularly in relation to adverse action, misclassification, and retaliatory HR conduct. The Employee’s Fight for Fair Pay Mr Naskovski, a customer service team coach, had worked at Hisense for several years when he began raising concerns that he was being underpaid. In 2020, following persistent complaints, he received a partial adjustment of $12,407. However, Mr Naskovski continued seeking full backpay and access to his employment records—rights protected under workplace law. His inquiries, made professionally and lawfully, placed him at odds with Hisense’s HR department. According to the Court, Hisense’s HR manager soon escalated matters, initiating what Judge Symons described as a "catalogue" of adverse and dismissive actions toward the employee. From Employee to Target: A Pattern of Retaliation By late 2020, Mr Naskovski had been promoted to team leader—a move soon overshadowed by the dismissal of the supervisor who offered him the role. The company later refused to honour the promotion, reigniting Mr Naskovski’s concerns about entitlements. Instead of resolving the issues in good faith, the HR manager began demanding that Mr Naskovski complete new employee forms and provide proof of legal residency—despite the fact that he was born in Australia and had been employed by the company for years. This culminated in an email issued while he was on sick leave, giving him six days to provide his birth certificate or risk termination. Internal Fraud Scandal and Suspicious Timing On the same day the HR manager issued her ultimatum, Hisense globally distributed an internal newsletter about a $3.7 million fraud—part of which involved its Australian operations. The newsletter was accessible only through the company’s internal system. Shortly after, Mr Naskovski forwarded the fraud newsletter and the HR manager’s emails to his personal account. The next day, he found himself locked out of his work systems. Three days later, he received notice of a disciplinary meeting to answer allegations of leaking confidential company information. Despite denying any wrongdoing and stating that he did not have access to the confidential links referenced in media reports, the company refused to provide evidence of the alleged leak or update him on its investigation. Procedural Fairness Denied When Mr Naskovski asked to use annual leave after exhausting his sick leave due to ongoing health concerns, the HR manager denied the request, citing the business's “busy season.” In January 2022, the HR manager scheduled an “informal welfare meeting,” which Mr Naskovski—still unwell—requested to handle in writing. Instead, the HR manager used his non-attendance as a pretext for booking a medical assessment without his consent. Shortly thereafter, Hisense dismissed him for “refusing” to attend the meeting and medical appointment. Court Slams HR Conduct and Employer Failures In her detailed judgment, Judge Symons found that Hisense had breached section 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009  by taking adverse action against Mr Naskovski for exercising his workplace rights. She said the HR manager’s conduct displayed “a high-handed, dismissive and at times retaliatory approach,” and condemned Hisense for failing to provide a single document relating to its investigation or decision-making process. “There was a profound disregard for precision and documentation,” Judge Symons observed, noting that nearly all the documentary evidence relied upon was produced by Mr Naskovski himself. “The publication of the [fraud] article did not disrupt the ongoing retaliation… It created the opportunity to put the blowtorch to him.” She further criticised the HR manager for rejecting the annual leave request during a period of illness, calling the decision “cold-hearted” and “antithetical to contemporary HR practices.” Court Condemns “Cold-hearted” HR Manager in Landmark Unfair Dismissal Case Against Hisense The Legal Outcome The Court found that Hisense: Engaged in adverse action contrary to the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act ; Misclassified Mr Naskovski’s role, resulting in systemic underpayments; Breached record-keeping obligations; Denied procedural fairness in a retaliatory dismissal process. Judge Symons ordered the parties to confer regarding underpayments before determining final compensation and penalties. Implications for Workers and Employers This case is a wake-up call for employers who treat employee complaints as nuisances. The Fair Work Commission and the Courts have made it abundantly clear: workers are entitled to raise complaints, access their records, and assert their workplace rights without fear of reprisal. For workers, Naskovski  is a reminder of the power of persistence and documentation. Mr Naskovski’s careful record-keeping played a pivotal role in discrediting Hisense’s narrative. For employers, the case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness, maintaining accurate records, and respecting the rights of employees—even when those rights are inconvenient. 1800ADVOCATES: Protecting Workers from Retaliation At 1800ADVOCATES, we believe no worker should be punished for demanding fair pay, lawful treatment, or access to their own records. We specialise in general protections claims, unfair dismissal, and wage recovery matters. If your employer has turned against you for exercising your rights, you are not alone . 📞 Call 1800ADVOCATES  or visit www.1800advocates.au  for free and confidential guidance.

At 1800ADVOCATES, we are deeply committed to supporting the rights and recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across Australia. As we celebrate NAIDOC Week 2025, we reflect on the history and enduring significance of this important national observance, which this year carries the powerful theme, "The Next Generation: Strength, Vision & Legacy." Understanding the Roots of NAIDOC Week NAIDOC Week originated from the profound Day of Mourning protest held on 26 January 1938. On this historic day, over a thousand Aboriginal people gathered at Australia Hall in Sydney, advocating for equal rights, citizenship, and improved living conditions. This event set the stage for what would become an annual day of reflection, protest, and celebration, initially known as "Aborigines Day." Recognising NAIDOC Week 2025: A Commitment to Strength, Vision, and Legacy In 1955, Aborigines Day transitioned from January to the first Sunday in July, shifting the focus from purely protest to a broader celebration of Aboriginal culture and heritage. The establishment of the National Aborigines Day Observance Committee (NADOC) further solidified the event's significance, eventually expanding to a full week of celebrations by 1975. The inclusion of Torres Strait Islander peoples saw the committee renamed NAIDOC, symbolising a unified voice for First Nations communities. NAIDOC Week 2025: Strengthening Future Generations The 2025 NAIDOC Week theme, "The Next Generation: Strength, Vision & Legacy," underscores the importance of empowering young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It emphasises the necessity of understanding and respecting ancestral knowledge, which provides the foundation and vision for future generations. Artist Jeremy Morgan Worrall eloquently represents this year's theme in his artwork "Ancestral Lines," highlighting the connection between generations, the enduring strength drawn from ancestral wisdom, and the ongoing legacy carried forward by the youth of today. Our Role and Responsibility At 1800ADVOCATES, recognising NAIDOC Week means reaffirming our commitment to advocating for workplace fairness, equality, and human rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We understand that true advocacy extends beyond symbolic gestures; it requires ongoing action, authentic partnerships, and active engagement with Indigenous communities. We encourage our clients, colleagues, and wider networks to participate actively in NAIDOC Week by: Engaging with and learning from local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Supporting and promoting Indigenous-led initiatives and businesses. Educating themselves and others about the rich history and cultures of First Nations peoples. Moving Forward Together NAIDOC Week is not merely a week on the calendar; it is a reminder of our collective responsibility to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices remain strong, visible, and respected. At 1800ADVOCATES, we remain committed to advocating for meaningful change, recognising that every step towards justice and equity for First Nations peoples strengthens the broader Australian community. Let us honour the strength, vision, and legacy of our Indigenous communities during NAIDOC Week 2025 and beyond.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) is set to arbitrate an important employment dispute involving former employees of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, who claim entitlement to redundancy payments after the conclusion of their maximum term contracts. In the recent decision, Commissioner Oanh Tran addressed preliminary objections raised by the Florey Institute, which argued that only the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), and not the individual former employees, had standing to file an application under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute originated from employment contracts described by the institute as "maximum term," concluding in December 2024. Fair Work Commission to Determine "maximum term" employees' case Commissioner Tran determined that the dispute resolution provisions in clause 43.5 of the Florey Institute’s 2024 enterprise agreement enable the Commission to arbitrate matters brought forward by individuals, provided the NTEU had previously raised the dispute on their behalf. Crucially, the Commissioner emphasized that jurisdiction under section 739 remains active until the dispute is resolved, regardless of whether employment contracts have ended or the enterprise agreement itself has ceased operating due to replacement or termination. The former employees had lengthy service histories with the Florey Institute—one spanning nearly 15 years and another approximately seven years. Both argued they were entitled to redundancy payments, while the Florey Institute countered that these were not genuine redundancies. Instead, the institute claimed their employment simply expired as initially agreed due to funding constraints. The institute attempted to narrowly interpret the dispute provisions, asserting that only the initiating party, in this case the NTEU, could bring the dispute to arbitration. However, Commissioner Tran rejected this interpretation, clarifying that the agreement’s language inherently includes both the NTEU and the individual employees represented. She underscored the principle that dispute resolution clauses must not diminish an individual's agency or restrict their ability to pursue personal workplace disputes, particularly when such disputes remain unresolved following union representation. A case management conference has been scheduled to arrange the subsequent arbitration steps, where the FWC will definitively address whether redundancy payments are warranted. This case highlights essential considerations for employment contracts described as "maximum term" and underscores the importance of clearly defined dispute resolution mechanisms within enterprise agreements. For comprehensive employment advocacy or assistance navigating similar issues, contact 1800ADVOCATES. Full decision Susan Cox v The Florey Institute Of Neuroscience And Mental Health Trading AS The Florey [2025] FWC 1610 (11 June 2025)