Search Results

Sexploitation is the use of sex or sexual content for commercial or personal gain, often at the expense of others. This can include the production and distribution of pornography, prostitution, and human trafficking. Sexploitation can also involve the use of blackmail or coercion to force individuals into engaging in sexual activities. In Australia, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) provides protection against sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and victimisation. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person's sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and intersex status. Sexploitation can be a form of sex discrimination, particularly when it involves the exploitation of vulnerable individuals, such as women and children. The Act provides protection against this type of discrimination, and individuals who have been subjected to sexploitation may be eligible to make a complaint under the Act. The Act also provides protection against sexual harassment, which can be a form of sexploitation. Sexual harassment can include unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. The Act prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace, in education, and in other areas of public life. In addition, the Act provides protection against victimisation, which means that an individual cannot be treated unfairly for making a complaint or participating in an investigation under the Act. Overall, the Sex Discrimination Act plays a crucial role in protecting individuals from sexploitation and other forms of sex discrimination. It is important for individuals to be aware of their rights under the Act and to seek legal advice if they believe they have been subjected to discrimination or harassment. By working together to prevent sexploitation and promote equality, we can create a safer and more equitable society for all. For fast and FREE help with matters like this, complete the Priority Intake Form on our website or gethelp@1800ADVOCATES.au | 1800 238 622 | www.1800ADVOCATES.au

Sham contracting is a term used in the Fair Work Act 2009 that refers to situations where an employer presents an employment relationship as an independent contracting arrangement, even though it is not. This is done to avoid providing employees with certain entitlements and obligations under the Act, such as minimum wages, leave entitlements, and superannuation contributions. The Act prohibits employers from engaging in sham contracting, as it is a form of exploitation that undermines the rights and protections afforded to employees under the law. The penalties for engaging in sham contracting are severe, with fines of up to $66,600 for corporations and $13,320 for individuals, as well as the requirement to repay any amounts owed to affected employees. To determine if an employment relationship is a sham contracting arrangement, the Act sets out several factors that must be considered. These factors include the level of control the employer has over the work performed, the degree of integration of the worker into the employer's business, and the extent to which the worker operates independently. Employers who are found to have engaged in sham contracting may also face legal action from affected employees, who may seek compensation for lost wages and entitlements. In addition, employers who engage in sham contracting may damage their reputation and face negative publicity, which can have long-term consequences for their business. It is essential for both employers and employees to be aware of the provisions surrounding sham contracting in the Fair Work Act 2009, as it is a serious breach of employment law. Employers should ensure that they are providing their employees with the correct entitlements and obligations under the Act, while employees who suspect they may have been subject to sham contracting should seek legal advice to understand their rights and options. Need help with an issue like this? Complete the Priority Intake Form on our website for fast and FREE consultation gethelp@1800ADOCATES.au | 1800 238 622 | www.1800ADVOCATES.au

The White Australia Policy was a series of laws and regulations implemented in Australia between 1901 and 1973, aimed at restricting non-European immigration to the country. The policy was based on the belief that Australia should remain a predominantly white, British society, and that non-white immigrants posed a threat to the country's cultural and economic development. The policy was eventually abolished in the 1970s, and Australia has since become a more diverse and multicultural society. Today, Australian human rights laws and anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin. These laws reflect a commitment to equality and non-discrimination, and are designed to protect the rights of all individuals, regardless of their background or heritage. While the White Australia Policy is no longer in effect, its legacy can still be felt in some areas of Australian society, particularly in relation to the treatment of Indigenous Australians and other minority groups. As such, it is important for Australians to continue to work towards building a more inclusive and equitable society, where all individuals are valued and treated with respect and dignity. Do you need help to take action and defend you Human Rights? Contact 1800ADVOCATES on 1800238622 | gethelp@1800ADVOCATES.au | www.1800ADVOCATES.au Complete the Priority Intake Form for a fast and free consultation.

Cyber bullying on Facebook involving racial discrimination is a serious issue that has become increasingly prevalent in today's digital age. It refers to the use of electronic communication technologies to harass, intimidate, or humiliate individuals based on their race or ethnicity. Such behavior is not only morally reprehensible, but also illegal under the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act. The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and other protected characteristics. This includes online harassment and bullying that targets individuals based on their race or ethnicity. The Act provides legal recourse for victims of cyber bullying, and allows them to file complaints with the Queensland Human Rights Commission. In the context of Facebook, cyber bullying involving racial discrimination can take many forms. This can include posting racist comments, images or videos, creating fake profiles to impersonate or mock individuals based on their race or ethnicity, or using private messaging to send threatening or abusive messages. These actions can have a devastating impact on the victim's mental health, self-esteem, and sense of safety. It is important for individuals to understand the serious consequences of engaging in cyber bullying involving racial discrimination on Facebook. Not only is it illegal under the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act, but it can also result in criminal charges and civil lawsuits. Additionally, Facebook has its own policies and procedures in place to address cyber bullying, and can take action against users who violate these policies. In conclusion, cyber bullying on Facebook involving racial discrimination is a harmful and illegal behavior that has no place in our society. It is important for individuals to understand the impact of their actions and to take responsibility for their behavior online. The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act provides legal recourse for victims of cyber bullying, and serves as an important tool in combating this pervasive issue. If you need help contact 1800ADVOCATES or email gethelp@1800ADVOCATES.au or call 1800238622 www.1800ADVOCATES.au

Sexual harassment in Australia is defined as any unwanted or unwelcome sexual behaviour, which makes a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. This can include: 1. Physical or verbal harassment, such as unwanted touching, sexual advances or comments, or leering. 2. Making sexual propositions or requests. 3. Displaying sexually explicit material, such as pornography. 4. Making threats or promises in return for sexual favours. 5. Spreading sexual rumours or making sexual comments about a person's body or appearance. It is important to note that sexual harassment can occur in any setting, including the workplace, educational institutions, and public places. It is a serious offence and can have significant impacts on a person's mental and physical health. If you would like a free consultation, please complete the high priority intake form on our website. Once we have assessed your information, we will allocate you to the appropriate advocate or investigator to assist you with your inquiry.

The history of unions in Australia dates back to the early 1800s when workers began to organize themselves to improve their working conditions and wages. However, it was not until the 1850s that unions began to gain significant influence and power. In 1856, the first successful strike in Australia took place when stonemasons in Melbourne demanded a shorter working day. This led to the formation of the Melbourne Trades Hall Council, which became the first central labor organization in Australia. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, unions grew in strength and membership, and they played a major role in the development of Australia's social and economic policies. In 1904, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) was formed, which became the political voice of the union movement. During the 20th century, unions continued to fight for workers' rights, including better pay, working conditions, and safety standards. They also played a key role in the development of Australia's welfare state, including the introduction of minimum wages, workers' compensation, and social security. Today, unions continue to be an important part of Australian society, representing workers across a range of industries, including healthcare, education, construction, and manufacturing. They continue to advocate for workers' rights and welfare, and they work closely with the government and employers to improve working conditions and promote economic growth. Are you looking for an alternative to union membership? Consider joining us.

If you believe you have unpaid superannuation, you can take the following steps to claim it: 1. Check if you are eligible: You can claim unpaid super if you are an employee and your employer has not paid your super contributions on time. 2. Contact your employer: If you believe you have unpaid super, the first step is to contact your employer and ask them to pay the outstanding amount. You can provide them with evidence of your entitlement to unpaid super, such as payslips or superannuation statements. 3. Lodge a complaint with the ATO: If your employer does not pay the outstanding amount, you can lodge a complaint with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The ATO will investigate your claim and may take legal action against your employer to recover the unpaid super. 4. Apply to the court: If the ATO is unable to recover your unpaid super, you can apply to the court to recover the amount owed to you. It's important to note that there are time limits for claiming unpaid super, so it's best to act quickly if you believe you are owed unpaid super. If you need assistance lodging and pursuing a claim for unpaid superannuation and you would like a FREE consultation with our Advocacy team, please complete the Priority Intake Form on our website.

To lodge an unfair dismissal claim, you need to follow these steps: 1. Check if you are eligible: You can only make an unfair dismissal claim if you have been employed for at least 6 months (or 12 months if you work for a small business) and you have been dismissed. 2. Lodge your claim with the Fair Work Commission: You can lodge your claim online, by mail, or in person at a Fair Work Commission office. You will need to provide details about your employment, the reason for your dismissal, and why you believe it was unfair. 3. Attend a conciliation conference: After you lodge your claim, the Fair Work Commission will arrange a conciliation conference between you and your former employer. The aim of the conference is to resolve the dispute without going to a formal hearing. 4. Attend a formal hearing: If the dispute is not resolved at the conciliation conference, the Fair Work Commission will schedule a formal hearing. You and your former employer will need to present evidence and arguments to support your case. 5. Wait for the decision: After the hearing, the Fair Work Commission will make a decision about whether your dismissal was unfair. If the commission finds in your favor, you may be awarded compensation or reinstatement to your former job. It's important to note that there are strict time limits for lodging an unfair dismissal claim, so it's best to seek legal advice as soon as possible. To fin out more information or for a FREE consultation, please complete the contact form on our website. www.1800ADVOCATES.AU/priority-intake-form

Introduction See Fair Work Act s.382 The high income threshold operates as a limit to an employee’s eligibility to be protected from unfair dismissal under the terms of the Fair Work Act 2009. If an employee is not covered by a modern award, or if an enterprise agreement does not apply to them, they must have an annual rate of earnings of less than the high income threshold. The high income threshold is currently $162,000.[1] This figure is adjusted annually on 1 July.[2] For a dismissal which took effect on or before 30 June 2022 the high income threshold was $158,500.[3] What are earnings? See Fair Work Act s.332 Earnings include: wages such other amounts (if any) worked out in accordance with the Regulations amounts dealt with on the employee’s behalf or as the employee directs, and the agreed money value of non-monetary benefits. Non-monetary benefits are benefits other than an entitlement to a payment of money: to which the employee is entitled in return for working, and for which a reasonable money value has been agreed by the employee and the employer. The Fair Work Commission has a discretion to include a benefit that is not a payment of money and that is not a 'non-monetary benefit' (within the meaning of s.332(3) of the Fair Work Act). It may do so where it is satisfied that it is appropriate to take it into account, and it can attribute a ‘real or notional’ value to the benefit, in default of any agreement between the parties.[4] Earnings do not include: payments the amount of which cannot be determined in advance such as: commissions incentive-based payments and bonuses, or overtime (except guaranteed overtime);[5] reimbursements (such as per diem payments),[6] and compulsory contributions to a superannuation fund (superannuation guarantee). Per diem means 'by the day' – a sum of money paid to an employee every day, such as a meal allowance or accommodation allowance. Superannuation Compulsory superannuation contributions are not included in the calculation of an employee’s earnings.[7] Any superannuation paid in excess of compulsory contributions may be included in the calculations of the employee’s earnings. Vehicles Where an employer provides an employee with a fully maintained vehicle the value of the private use of the vehicle can be included in the annual rate of earnings.[8] Use for business purposes is excluded and only the proportion of private usage can be counted as remuneration.[9] Where there is no agreed monetary value of the benefit of the private use of a motor vehicle, the Commission will generally apply the following formula:[10] Determine the annual distance travelled by the vehicle in question. Determine the percentage of that distance that was for private use. Multiply the above two figures to obtain the annual distance travelled for private purposes. Estimate the cost per kilometre for a vehicle of that type (may be obtained from RACV, NRMA or other similar motoring association). Multiply the annual distance travelled for private purpose (obtained at step 3) by the estimated cost per kilometre. The figure obtained is the value of the vehicle to the employee and is added to remuneration.[11] Where an employer provides an employee with a car allowance, the allowance should be treated in the following way for the purpose of calculating an employee’s ‘annual rate of earnings’: If a car allowance is paid to an employee in circumstances in which there is no requirement or expectation that the employee will have to use his or her car for work purposes, then the whole of the car allowance is, in reality, part of the employee’s wages and is therefore included in their ‘earnings’. If a car allowance is paid to an employee at the time of their dismissal in circumstances in which there is a requirement or expectation that the employee will have to use his or her car for work purposes, then it will be necessary to determine and calculate the private benefit, if any, derived by the employee from the car allowance.[12] Fringe benefit tax Fringe benefit tax is a tax that is imposed on an employer when they provide a benefit to an employee,[13] such as personal use of a company owned vehicle. Fringe benefit tax may or may not be counted as earnings depending on whether the amount is found to be an amount dealt with as the employee directs. Where the employer is ‘free to choose whether to provide a particular benefit to an employee’ it cannot be said to be an amount dealt with on the employee’s behalf.[14] Fringe benefit tax may be an amount dealt with at the employee’s direction, in a genuine salary sacrifice situation when an employee has forgone wages in return for a benefit.[15] In this situation fringe benefit tax will be included in the employee’s earnings.[16] Case examples Earnings Tax-deductible work-related expenses Read v Universal Store Pty Ltd T/A Universal Store [2010] FWA 5772 (McKenna C, 23 August 2010). The employee claimed that tax-deductible work-related expenses should be deducted from his wages for the purpose of calculating whether the high income threshold had been exceeded. This submission was not accepted. Pre-determined overtime Foster v CBI Constructors Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 1976 (Catanzariti VP, Lawler VP, Lewin C, 24 March 2014). The employee was required to attend 30 minute pre-start meeting every work day which was paid as overtime. It was found the overtime payments could be determined in advance so the 2.5 hours of overtime per week could be included in the calculation of his earnings. Guaranteed overtime Cross v Bechtel Construction (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 3639 (Catanzariti VP, 29 June 2015). The employee was contractually obliged to work a 58 hour Extended Work Week (EWW) which was comprised of 40 hours ordinary work and 18 hours overtime. The Commission found that the overtime was guaranteed as the required 58 hour EWW could clearly be determined in advance and therefore should be used as the basis for calculating the annual rate of earnings. Vehicle Zappia v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd T/A Universal Music Australia [2012] FWA 3208 (Hamberger SDP, 18 April 2012). The employee argued that the provision of a company car was a tool of the trade and should not be considered part of his earnings. It was found that the vehicle was primarily used for private purposes and was a significant part of the employee’s remuneration package. Private use of company provided iPhone and iPad Dart v Trade Coast Investments Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 4355 (Sams DP, 29 June 2015). The employee was provided with an iPhone and iPad at the commencement of his employment with permission for personal use ‘within reason’. The employee accepted that he had used the phone for personal calls, but, as with the vehicle, he argued that this was ‘incidental’ to the phone’s primary business purpose. The phone records disclosed that of 659 national direct calls, it appeared that 412 were direct personal calls (62.5%). When the phone and iPad were returned on termination, there were 610 personal photos on the iPad, and eight videos, as distinct from 21 work related entries. The calculated benefit from the employee’s private use of the phone and iPad resulted in his earnings exceeding the salary cap threshold. Life insurance policy Savannah Nickel Mines Pty Ltd v Crowley [2016] FWCFB 2630 (Hamberger SDP, Hamilton DP, Saunders C, 27 April 2016). The cost of the premium for a life insurance policy, which was paid for by the employer, was found to be an amount applied or dealt with on the employee’s behalf and was included in calculating the employee’s income. NOT earnings Travel allowance Davidson v Adecco Australia Pty Ltd T/A Adecco [2012] FWA 8393 (Booth C, 4 October 2012). The employee was in receipt of an annual travel allowance of $16,000 for the use of his own vehicle for work travel. It was held that the business use component of the allowance was to be excluded from the 'earnings'. Only the personal use could be included in ‘earnings’. Bonuses Jenny Craig Weight Loss Centres v Margolina [2011] FWAFB 9137 (Giudice J, Hamilton DP, Robert C, 23 December 2011). In the previous financial year the employee had received a base salary of $60,000, a 5 year bonus of $100,000 and an annual performance bonus of $42,000. It was found that the 5 year bonus could not be ‘determined in advance’ because the employer reserved the right to alter or discontinue the bonus plan, and it was likely that the same applied to the annual performance bonus. The employee therefore earned less than the high income threshold. Fringe benefit tax Rofin Australia Pty Ltd v Newton, Print P6855 (AIRCFB, Williams SDP, Acton DP, Eames C, 21 November 1997), [(1997) 78 IR 78]. Fringe benefit tax on the provision of a motor vehicle was found not to be part of the employee’s earnings as it was the employer’s taxation liability. This was distinguished from a genuine salary sacrifice situation where it can be said that fringe benefit tax is an amount paid at the direction of and by arrangement with the employee which would otherwise be part of the employee’s salary package. Mobile broadband – personal use Maturu v Leica Geosystems Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 6735 (Catanzariti VP, Asbury DP, Spencer C, 29 September 2014). The personal use of a mobile broadband service, on a laptop computer supplied for work purposes, was found not to be a ‘non-monetary benefit’. This was because the mobile broadband service was provided as a piece of equipment that was essential to the performance of the job and there was no evidence of any agreement in relation to the private use of the mobile broadband service. References [1] This figure applies from 1 July 2022. [2] For more information on the high income threshold please see Fair Work Act s.333; Fair Work Regulations reg 2.13. [3] High income threshold for period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022. [4] Fair Work Regulations reg 3.05(6). [5] See note in Fair Work Act s.332; incentive bonuses discussed in Jenny Craig Weight Loss Centres Pty Ltd v Margolina [2011] FWAFB 9137 (Giudice J, Hamilton DP, Roberts C, 23 December 2011) at para. 19. [6] See for e.g. Schreuders v Freelancer International Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 3286 (Booth DP, 15 May 2015). [7] Fair Work Act s.332(2)(c); discussed in Ablett v Gemco Rail Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 8124 (Williams C, 22 October 2010) at paras 31‒32. [8] Rofin Australia Pty Ltd v Newton Print P6855 (AIRCFB, Williams SDP, Acton DP, Eames C, 21 November 1997), [(1997) 78 IR 78 at p. 82]; citing Condon v G James Extrusion Company Print N9963 (AIRC, Watson DP, 4 April 1997), [(1997) 74 IR 283 at p. 288]; cited in Slavin v Horizon Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 2424 (Bissett C, 23 March 2012) at para. 11. [9] ibid. [10] Kunbarllanjnja Community Government Council v Fewings Print Q0675 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Watson SDP, Bacon C, 7 May 1998); cited in Chang v Ntscorp Ltd [2010] FWA 1952 (Hamberger SDP, 9 March 2010); see McIlwraith v Toowong Mitsubishi Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 3614 (Cribb C, 30 April 2012) at para. 34. [11] Kunbarllanjnja Community Government Council v Fewings Print Q0675 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Watson SDP, Bacon C, 7 May 1998). [12] Sam Technology Engineers Pty Ltd v Bernadou [2018] FWCFB 1767 (Gostencnik DP, Clancy DP, Saunders C, 27 March 2018) at para. 72. [13] Rofin Australia Pty Ltd v Newton Print P6855 (AIRCFB, Williams SDP, Acton DP, Eames C, 21 November 1997), [(1997) 78 IR 78 at p. 82]. [14] ibid. [15] Chang v Ntscorp Ltd [2010] FWA 1952 (Hamberger SDP, 9 March 2010) at para. 21. [16] ibid.

Ms Maree Fay Harwood (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for the Commission to deal with a dismissal dispute. The dispute arose out of the Applicant’s allegations that she was dismissed from her employment with South Youth and Family Services Limited (the Respondent) in contravention of Part 3-1 of the Act. The information provided in the application, and in the employer response form lodged by the Respondent, indicates that the application may have been made out of time. Before considering the merits of the application, the Commission must be satisfied that the application was not made out of time and, if it was, whether there are exceptional circumstances giving rise to an extension of time. At paragraph 71 of the decision, Commissioner Schneider said; "I note the Respondent’s contentions regarding the above giving rise to exceptional circumstances. In response, I highlight the evidence advanced by the Applicant regarding her health concerns. Further, it is not an issue if an application is lodged on the final day of timeframe. It is understandable that one would opt to take ample time to prepare their application and such an act should not be questioned. Additionally, consistent with previous decisions of the Commission, it is not an issue if an applicant mistakenly lodges the wrong application type given this is promptly remedied." The decision was finally determined that the Fair Work Commission did find that there were exceptional circumstances to allow the out of time application, based on the applicant having suffered a medical condition which was deemed as just cause to find 'exceptional circumstances'. If you would like to take advantage of a FREE consultation with one of our Advocates to discuss your Fair Work matter or any workplace or Human Rights matter of concern, please visit our contact page and complete the online form for priority consideration.

Section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides for an applicant to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal. There are cases, such as the recently settled Sam King v Fingal Bay Service Station & Tyre Service Pty Ltd where the Fair Work Commission can dismiss an application because directions are not complied with in terms of filing submissions. In Sam King v Fingal Bay Service Station & Tyre Service Pty Ltd the applicant (King) was required to file documents and then later given an ultimate deadline to file documents as a 'last chance' and informed by the Fair Work Commission that the unfair dismissal application would be dismissed if the orders not complied with. The orders to file were not satisfied and the unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed. This is one example of why compliance with orders of the Fair Work Commission in unfair dismissal and any other matter before the Fair Work Commission is important. It is often the case that self represented parties get to a point of frustration and hopeless despair because of their l;ack of experience in the jurisdiction. If you need advice on an unfair dismissal appeal, always seek advice from professional advocates or a lawyer specialising in the area of employment law. Call us for a FREE consultation or complete the contact for on this website. 1800 238 622

These are some terms you will find when you are accessing unfair dismissal remedies in Australia; Fair Work Commission: This is the main government body responsible for handling disputes related to unfair dismissal in Australia. Searching for this keyword can provide information on the process for making a claim. Unfair dismissal laws: This term can be used to search for the legal framework that governs unfair dismissal in Australia, including the Fair Work Act and related regulations. Small business exemptions: In Australia, some small businesses are exempt from certain unfair dismissal laws. Searching for this term can provide information on the criteria for exemption and how it might affect your case. Constructive dismissal: This is a type of unfair dismissal that occurs when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that an employee is forced to resign. Searching for this term can provide information on how to prove a case of constructive dismissal. Discrimination: If you believe that you were unfairly dismissed because of your race, gender, age, or other protected characteristic, searching for this term can provide information on how to make a discrimination claim. Remedies: If you are successful in a claim of unfair dismissal, searching for this term can provide information on the remedies available, such as reinstatement, compensation, or a combination of both. Unlawful termination: This is another term that can be used to search for information on unfair dismissal in Australia, particularly in cases where the termination was in breach of contract or other legal obligations. If you need help with a potential unfair dismissal case, call 1800238622 or complete the form on this page to claim your FREE consultation.