Search Results

Margaret Gilbert, president of the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland (NPAQ), is facing the possibility of losing her position at a hospital following an unsuccessful appeal in the Queensland Industrial Court. The court determined that her unauthorised media statements were not protected under industrial activity provisions. Deputy President Catherine Hartigan's ruling clarified the distinctions between an industrial association and a trade union. The court concluded that the NPAQ did not meet the legal definitions of either entity, allowing Queensland Health to lawfully issue a "show cause" notice to Gilbert in response to her media comments. This ruling aligns with an earlier mid-2021 decision by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (IRC). Deputy President Hartigan pointed out that it would be unreasonable to allow an unregistered organisation like the NPAQ, which has a separate corporate and legal identity, to benefit from the protections intended for registered organisations under Queensland's Industrial Relations (IR) Act without bearing the associated responsibilities. The IR Act defines an industrial association as either an employee organisation or an association of employees. An employee organisation must be registered under the Act, which the NPAQ is not. Moreover, an "association of employees" refers to a collective of workers who join forces to protect and advance their workplace interests, explicitly excluding incorporated entities like the NPAQ. Deputy President Hartigan noted, "It is inconsistent to consider an incorporated organisation as an 'association of employees' within the meaning of the IR Act." She emphasised that registered organisations gain specific rights and responsibilities through their registration, a status the NPAQ does not hold. As a result, the NPAQ cannot be classified as an "association of employees," and Gilbert's activities do not qualify as protected industrial activity under section 290 of the IR Act. Additionally, the court addressed Gilbert's argument that the NPAQ should be considered a trade union and that she engaged in trade union activities. While not being a registered employee organisation does not automatically disqualify a group from being a trade union, the NPAQ's status as an incorporated association and its focus on professional representation, rather than workplace advocacy, were found to be inconsistent with trade union characteristics. Gilbert also contended that Queensland Health infringed upon her rights to freedom of expression and association. However, Deputy President Hartigan concluded that since the NPAQ is not a trade union and Gilbert did not engage in trade union activities, her specified human rights were not applicable in this case. With the appeal dismissed, Gilbert now faces potential dismissal from her hospital role. This case underscores the importance of understanding the legal distinctions and requirements for industrial associations and trade unions in the context of workplace rights and protections. The case attracted further attention when Deputy President Hartigan took over from Justice Peter Davis, who recused himself due to potential bias concerns related to a letter he sent to the Industrial Relations Minister about regulating unregistered unions. The outcome of Gilbert v Metro North Health and Hospital Service and Ors (No. 2) [2023] ICQ 020 highlights the intricacies of industrial relations law and the critical distinctions between registered and unregistered organisations in Australia.

The process took place in three stages, beginning in 1991 and concluding in 1996. To understand the historical background and the rationale behind the Australian Labor Party (ALP) government's decision to privatise the bank, it's essential to consider the broader economic context and the political landscape of the time. Historical Background - Establishment and Early Years The Commonwealth Bank was established in 1911 by the Australian government and began operations in 1912. It was initially conceived as a government-owned bank to serve the financial needs of Australians, offering services such as savings accounts, personal loans, and business banking. Over the decades, the CBA expanded its services and became a central pillar of Australia's banking sector. Economic Reforms of the 1980s and 1990s By the late 20th century, Australia, like many other countries, was experiencing significant economic and structural changes. The 1980s and early 1990s were marked by a wave of economic reforms aimed at deregulating and modernising the economy. These reforms included financial deregulation, trade liberalisation, and privatisation of state-owned enterprises. The Hawke and Keating governments, both from the ALP, played crucial roles in these reforms. Reasons for Privatisation The ALP government, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke and later by Prime Minister Paul Keating, decided to privatise the Commonwealth Bank for several reasons: 1. Economic Efficiency The ALP government believed that privatisation would lead to increased efficiency and competitiveness in the banking sector. The prevailing economic theory suggested that private ownership would impose market discipline, leading to better management and improved performance of the bank. 2. Fiscal Policy Privatisation provided a significant source of revenue for the government. The sale of the Commonwealth Bank was expected to reduce the budget deficit and help manage public debt. At the time, the government was looking for ways to strengthen its fiscal position without raising taxes or cutting essential services. 3. Financial Deregulation The financial sector in Australia had undergone considerable deregulation since the early 1980s. The government had already removed interest rate controls, allowed foreign banks to enter the market, and floated the Australian dollar. Privatising the Commonwealth Bank was seen as a natural extension of these deregulatory measures, aimed at fostering a more competitive and dynamic financial sector. 4. Political Ideology The decision also reflected a shift in the ALP's approach to economic policy. Under the leadership of Hawke and Keating, the ALP embraced a more market-oriented philosophy. This ideological shift supported the notion that private enterprise was better suited to run commercial operations than the government. The Privatisation Process - 1991 - Initial Public Offering (IPO) The first tranche of the Commonwealth Bank's privatisation occurred in 1991, with the government selling 30% of its shares through an initial public offering (IPO). This move was part of the broader strategy to test the waters and gauge public and market reaction. 1993 - Further Sale In 1993, the government sold an additional 19.5% of its shares. This second phase continued the gradual reduction of government ownership in the bank. 1996 - Final Sale The final stage of the privatisation process took place in 1996 under the newly elected Liberal-National Coalition government led by Prime Minister John Howard. The remaining government shares were sold, fully privatising the Commonwealth Bank. Impact and Legacy The privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank marked a significant shift in Australia's economic landscape. It had several notable impacts: - Increased Competition: The privatisation contributed to a more competitive banking sector, encouraging innovation and improved services for consumers. - Government Revenue: The sale provided substantial revenue, aiding in fiscal management and reducing public debt. - Market Confidence: The successful privatisation was seen as a vote of confidence in the Australian economy, attracting both domestic and international investment. Convulsion The privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank was a landmark decision driven by a combination of economic theory, fiscal necessity, and ideological shift within the ALP government. It reflected the broader trends of economic reform and deregulation that characterised Australia in the late 20th century. The legacy of this decision continues to influence the Australian financial sector and economic policy today.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has granted a 13-day extension to a worker experiencing "significant" mental health challenges, permitting her to file an unfair dismissal claim after the deadline. This decision underscores the recognition of severe mental health issues, beyond the "ordinary stress" associated with most dismissals, as a valid reason for delay. The worker, a junior salesforce administrator at Leap Software Developments Pty Ltd, was informed that her role was made redundant effective immediately on February 20. She lodged her unfair dismissal claim on March 25, 13 days past the 21-day filing deadline stipulated under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s. 394(2). In her defence, the administrator presented a report from a senior clinical psychologist detailing her struggles with adjustment disorder, depression, anxiety, trauma, and insomnia. The report highlighted how these issues compromised her resilience and affected her ability to manage day-to-day tasks, including filing the necessary documentation for her unfair dismissal application. Email evidence revealed that the administrator had informed Leap of her pregnancy on February 14. On February 19, a day before her dismissal, Leap had congratulated her and provided the parental leave policy and application form. She testified that her doctors considered her pregnancy high-risk, adding to her stress. Leap argued that the administrator's ability to attend medical and legal appointments and complete medical paperwork indicated she was capable of filing her dismissal claim on time. However, Commissioner Stephen Crawford rejected this argument. He acknowledged the significant mental health issues and high-risk pregnancy, recognising these factors as contributing to her delay. Commissioner Crawford found the administrator had a valid reason for the delay up to March 18, when she sought assistance from Allwell Legal principal Zherui Yang. Due to her mental health issues, she was unable to file the application without help. Yang explained that collecting supporting evidence for the application caused additional delay. Commissioner Crawford noted that the appropriate course of action, given the 21-day period had already lapsed, would have been to file the application urgently with the available information. While the further seven-day delay could be attributed to representative error, there was insufficient evidence to establish this definitively. Ultimately, Commissioner Crawford marginally found that the administrator's mental health issues and high-risk pregnancy constituted exceptional circumstances under s. 394(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He stated, "The medical evidence establishes that the issues were substantially more than the ordinary stress that will inevitably arise with most dismissals." Genuine Redundancy Questioned Commissioner Crawford also questioned Leap's claim that the dismissal was a genuine redundancy. He suggested the administrator had reasonable prospects of proving her dismissal did not meet the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s. 389 definition of genuine redundancy. He pointed out that Leap may have failed to consult with the administrator about the impending retrenchment as required under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s. 389(1)(b). While Leap claimed her role was not covered by a modern award, Commissioner Crawford expressed doubt, noting her role and $80,000 salary likely fell under a modern award. "It appears arguable that Leap did not comply with the consultation provisions in the relevant modern award," he said, citing a lack of submissions or evidence from the administrator's lawyers on this issue. The administrator testified that she was unaware of any restructuring process leading to redundancy at the time of her dismissal. The parental leave application form sent the day before her dismissal gave no indication of her employment's imminent end. Commissioner Crawford concluded, "Given the timeframes involved, there is significant doubt that redeployment was properly considered by Leap." He found that the administrator's significant mental health issues, the steps taken to dispute her dismissal, and the potential merit of her application collectively constituted exceptional circumstances. This ruling highlights the FWC's recognition of severe mental health challenges as a valid reason for delays in filing unfair dismissal claims, emphasising the importance of comprehensive mental health considerations in employment disputes. Case Citation Jaweeria Khan v Leap Software Developments Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1218 (9 May 2024) --- For more information on your rights and assistance with employment matters, visit [1800ADVOCATES](https://www.1800advocates.com.au) or contact a [MYUNION](https://www.MYUNION.au) representative.

In a significant legislative victory, the Greens have successfully negotiated with the Albanese Government to include substantial amendments to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. This move marks a pivotal shift in addressing unpaid superannuation, equating it to wage theft, and aims to bolster job security for teachers while preventing employers from exploiting intractable bargaining declarations. Key Amendments Secured Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke introduced these pivotal amendments, which were reached in agreement with employer groups concerning casual work, gig economy workers, and service contractors. The amendments reflect the Greens' ongoing commitment to workers' rights and include the following critical changes: 1. Superannuation Theft as Wage Theft: The amendments place unpaid superannuation in the same legal category as wage theft. This categorisation will see the most serious cases of superannuation theft criminalised under the Closing Loopholes Bill. This is a landmark step in safeguarding workers' retirement funds and ensuring employers are held accountable for their financial obligations to their employees. 2. Job Security for Educators: The amendments ensure that teachers and lecturers cannot be classified as undertaking seasonal work. This closes a loophole that previously allowed employers to terminate their contracts at the end of a teaching term and rehire them in the new year. By securing this change, the Greens aim to provide greater stability and job security for educators. 3. Preventing Bargaining Exploitation: Another critical amendment addresses an "unintended loophole" in enterprise agreement negotiations. Employers will no longer be able to stonewall and delay negotiations to push them off to arbitration, where they might seek to roll back hard-won conditions. This change aims to level the playing field in enterprise bargaining, ensuring fairer outcomes for workers. The Greens' Advocacy Greens leader Adam Bandt emphasised that these changes are crucial in lifting wages and empowering workers in their fight for fair pay and conditions. "The Greens amendments help fix problems that have seen workers' superannuation stolen, left teachers unprotected from being pushed into casual work, and given big employers the upper hand in enterprise bargaining negotiations," Bandt stated. Senator Barbara Pocock echoed this sentiment, highlighting the substantial impact of these amendments on Australian workers. "Superannuation is not an 'optional extra' and the amendments would reduce super theft," she said. According to Pocock, the average worker is out of pocket by $1,700 annually due to unpaid superannuation, amounting to a staggering $3.4 billion each year. Pocock also noted the benefits these amendments bring to educators. "Many teachers in schools and universities are in precarious employment working on casual fixed-term contracts. The Government has agreed to our proposal to specifically exclude 'university semester and school term from the definition of a specified season'," she explained. This change will provide much-needed clarity and stability to up to 60,000 university workers and tens of thousands of school teachers. Continuing the Fight While these amendments mark a significant step forward, the Greens are not resting on their laurels. Senator Pocock is continuing to push for further concessions in the Upper House, including the right to disconnect from work. This initiative aims to address the growing concern over work-life balance and the impact of constant connectivity on workers' well-being. The Greens' commitment to advocating for workers' rights remains unwavering as they strive to secure a fairer and more just workplace environment for all Australians. Legislative References - Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023: The primary legislation under which these amendments have been made, addressing various aspects of workplace relations, including casual work and gig economy protections. Conclusion The successful negotiation of these amendments is a testament to the Greens' dedication to protecting Australian workers. By treating unpaid superannuation as wage theft, securing job stability for educators, and preventing exploitation in enterprise bargaining, the Greens have ensured significant legislative advancements that will benefit countless workers across the nation. As the fight for further concessions continues, the focus remains on creating a fairer, more equitable workplace for all.

On 15 March 2024, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission, consisting of Justice Hatcher, Vice President Asbury, Deputy President O’Neill, Professor Baird, and Dr Risse, delivered a landmark decision regarding applications to vary three modern awards: the Aged Care Award 2010, the Nurses Award 2020, and the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS Award). This decision, known as the Stage 3 decision, addresses critical issues of work value and gender undervaluation in the aged care and nursing sectors. Key Issues and Decisions Gender Undervaluation: The decision acknowledged historical gender-based undervaluation of work in female-dominated industries, particularly in aged care and nursing. This recognition is pivotal in addressing wage disparities and ensuring fair compensation. Work Value Assessment: The Full Bench conducted a thorough assessment of the work value for direct care employees, including Personal Care Workers (PCWs), Home Care Workers (HCWs), Assistants in Nursing (AINs), and Registered Nurses (RNs). It was determined that the existing minimum wage rates did not adequately compensate these employees for the value of their work, justifying a significant wage increase. Interim Wage Increase: An interim wage increase of 15% for direct care employees was implemented, effective from 30 June 2023. This increase was deemed necessary to achieve the objectives of modern awards and minimum wages as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Further Wage Adjustments: The decision also involved evaluating whether further wage adjustments were warranted for both direct and indirect care employees. This comprehensive review aimed to ensure that all categories of workers within the aged care sector were fairly remunerated based on the true value of their work. Classification Structures: The decision addressed the need for revising classification structures within the awards to better reflect the diverse roles and responsibilities of aged care and nursing employees. This included considerations for creating new classification streams and aligning nursing classifications with relevant standards. Historical Context The decision placed significant emphasis on the historical context of gender assumptions in wage fixation from 1907 to 1967. It detailed how traditional gender roles and stereotypes influenced the setting of minimum wages, leading to systemic undervaluation of work performed predominantly by women. The Commission highlighted several key historical decisions, including the Harvester decision, the Fruit Pickers decision, and the Archer decision, which collectively shaped the gender-biased wage structures. Conclusion and Next Steps This Stage 3 decision marks a significant step towards rectifying gender-based wage disparities in the aged care and nursing sectors. The Full Bench's acknowledgment of historical undervaluation and the subsequent wage increases set a precedent for future considerations of gender equity in wage fixation. The decision underscores the importance of ongoing reviews and adjustments to ensure that modern awards accurately reflect the value of work performed by all employees, irrespective of gender. Implications for the Industry For industry stakeholders, this decision necessitates careful consideration of the new wage structures and classification adjustments. Employers in the aged care and nursing sectors must ensure compliance with the revised awards and support the transition to fairer wage practices. Additionally, this decision serves as a critical reminder of the ongoing need to address gender inequities in the workplace, fostering a more equitable and just employment environment for all. For further details, you can access the full decision [here](https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2024fwcfb150.pdf). This summary provides a concise overview of the significant elements of the Fair Work Commission's decision, focusing on gender equity and fair remuneration in the aged care and nursing sectors. It aims to inform and guide stakeholders in understanding the implications and necessary actions arising from this landmark ruling.

In a landmark decision, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has emphasised the need for higher standards of workplace behaviour, rejecting the unfair dismissal claim of a long-serving Alcoa employee accused of groping a female colleague. This ruling serves as a warning that workplaces must now meet significantly stricter standards to ensure a respectful and safe environment for all employees. The case involved an advanced mechanical tradesperson at Alcoa's Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in Western Australia. After almost 20 years of service, the tradesperson was summarily dismissed following an investigation into an allegation that he inappropriately touched a female colleague's buttocks as he passed her in an office. The female employee, who is de-identified in the FWC's decision, testified that the tradesperson, with his back turned to her, placed his hands behind him and touched her "in an intimate location in a central area 'underneath her buttocks' close to her anus." She reported feeling shocked and uncomfortable but did not wish to cause a scene, opting instead to stand in silence. Her partner, who also worked at Alcoa, noticed her distress upon entering the office soon after and confronted the tradesperson. The tradesperson claimed he only tapped the woman on the side of her upper bottom to ask her to move out of the way. Nonetheless, Alcoa escalated the matter, standing him down and conducting a thorough investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. Despite her initial reluctance to formally report the incident due to fear of backlash, the female employee cooperated with Alcoa's investigation and was compelled to provide evidence to the FWC. It was revealed that the tradesperson had been previously counselled in 2009 over allegations of inappropriate physical contact with other workers. Deputy President Melanie Binet, in her ruling, accepted the woman's evidence that the tradesperson "groped her" by "touching underneath between her buttocks." She noted that the contact's sexualised nature was consistent with the woman's reaction and the observations of multiple witnesses to her distress on the day of the incident and following days. Deputy President Binet criticised the tradesperson's legal representatives for attempting to blame the victim, arguing that her position in the office made accidental contact foreseeable. She dismissed this argument, clarifying that the office was not a narrow walkway and that the woman's location did not justify the tradesperson's actions. Deputy President Binet stated, "It cannot be said that by merely joining her male colleagues in a small office she invited 'accidental' contact." She further noted that the tradesperson's own admission of placing his hands on the woman's lower torso and applying force to move her undermined any claims of accidental contact. The deputy president found that the tradesperson's actions, whether intended to be sexual or not, were of a sexual nature and breached Alcoa's code and policies governing workplace behaviour. This decision underscores that Australian workplaces are now expected to maintain far higher standards of conduct. Deputy President Binet highlighted that modern societal expectations, as reflected in company policies, demand greater respect and consent in physical interactions. This heightened scrutiny is particularly significant in industries such as mining, where there has been increased focus on addressing the prevalence of sexual harassment. The ruling aligns with recent amendments to the Fair Work Act, which explicitly recognise sexual harassment as a valid reason for dismissal. This legislative change reflects a broader societal commitment to eradicating sexual harassment from the workplace, equating it with other forms of serious misconduct such as violence and theft. The dismissal of the tradesperson's unfair dismissal claim in John Tamaliunas v Alcoa of Australia Limited [2024] FWC 779 (2 April 2024) serves as a critical reminder that Australian workplaces are under greater scrutiny to uphold high standards of behaviour. Employers and employees must work together to foster a respectful and safe working environment. This case demonstrates that organisations are expected to act decisively against misconduct, reinforcing the commitment to ensuring that all employees can work free from harassment and intimidation. By adhering to these heightened standards, the FWC ensures that workplaces reflect the evolving expectations of modern Australian society, promoting a culture of respect and safety for all. This blog post highlights the FWC's recent decision, which sets a precedent for workplace behaviour and reinforces the necessity for stringent adherence to respectful conduct. It serves as a crucial reminder for all organisations to maintain a zero-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment, ensuring a safe and respectful workplace for everyone.

In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) explored the concept of "current" valid reasons for dismissal. This case involved Vivesco Pty Ltd, which summarily dismissed a gardener nearly two months after he verbally abused a colleague. Despite identifying significant procedural deficiencies, the FWC supported the employer's decision to terminate the employee. Case Overview The gardener argued that his dismissal was unfair and claimed Vivesco was trying to force him to resign by assigning difficult tasks and substandard equipment. On the other hand, Vivesco cited numerous complaints from co-workers about the gardener's aggressive behaviour over six weeks, leading to his summary dismissal. The Key Incident The primary incident leading to the gardener's dismissal occurred in mid-December. The gardener accused a colleague of being a "liar" over a lawnmower dispute, followed by calling him a "fat exploiter of foreigners" and daring him to report to the managing director. This behaviour constituted a valid reason for dismissal due to its aggressive nature. Additionally, the gardener sent a "bizarre" message to a co-worker, claiming to be one of Australia's wealthiest men. The gardener explained this was meant to highlight the co-worker's 'imposter syndrome.' Another incident involved the gardener intimidating the same co-worker by calling him a narcissist while he was filling fuel cans. FWC's Analysis Deputy President Alan Colman determined the mid-December incident was serious misconduct and a valid reason for dismissal. However, Vivesco delayed the dismissal until after further complaints about the gardener's behaviour surfaced. The delay did not negate the validity of the original reason for dismissal. Deputy President Colman emphasised that section 387(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires the Commission to assess whether there was a valid reason for dismissal, independent of the employer's timing. This provision underscores the importance of maintaining a valid reason for dismissal, even with procedural deficiencies. Balancing Procedural Fairness and Misconduct Although significant procedural deficiencies were acknowledged, including not notifying the gardener of the dismissal reasons or giving him an opportunity to respond, Deputy President Colman concluded that the severity of the gardener's misconduct outweighed these issues. The case James Chol v Vivesco Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1220 (9 May 2024) highlights the FWC's stance on unfair dismissal claims, emphasising that valid reasons for dismissal remain critical, even in the face of procedural shortcomings. This decision serves as a reminder that both procedural fairness and substantive reasons are crucial in dismissal cases. Conclusion This ruling provides valuable insights for employers and employees regarding the balance between procedural fairness and substantive reasons for dismissal. The FWC's decision affirms that while procedural deficiencies are significant, they do not automatically render a dismissal unfair if there are valid reasons justifying the termination. For further details, refer to the case James Chol v Vivesco Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1220 (9 May 2024).

The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) has been instrumental in driving significant advancements in Indigenous employment within the tertiary education sector over the past two decades. A recent article in the Journal of Industrial Relations sheds light on the union's unique approach, highlighting its commitment to collective bargaining and the establishment of Indigenous-specific provisions in enterprise agreements. In 2000, Indigenous employment in higher education stood at a mere 0.68% of the workforce. However, through the NTEU's concerted efforts, this figure has more than doubled, reaching 1.34% by 2020. While this progress is commendable, it falls short of achieving population parity, which stands at 3.1%. Sharlene Leroy-Dyer, a prominent academic and chair of the NTEU National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Committee, underscores the importance of placing Indigenous workplace issues at the forefront of bargaining. Leroy-Dyer emphasizes the transformative power of collective bargaining in prioritizing labor market equality and fostering improved work environments for Indigenous peoples. However, historical marginalization has hindered the full realization of this potential. She notes that unions, including the NTEU, have often been complicit in the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from waged work—a legacy that must be acknowledged and addressed. Central to the NTEU's approach is its commitment to Indigenous-specific bargaining. Since the late 1990s, the union has consistently advocated for the inclusion of Indigenous employment targets and other provisions in enterprise agreements. This proactive stance has resulted in tangible benefits for Indigenous workers, including cultural leave, language allowances, and requirements for Indigenous representation in leadership positions. The NTEU's efforts have not been without challenges. Government policies, such as the Workplace Relations Act and the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements, have posed significant obstacles, limiting the union's ability to advocate effectively for Indigenous-friendly provisions. Despite these setbacks, the NTEU has persisted in its pursuit of equitable outcomes for Indigenous employees. One of the hallmarks of the NTEU's approach is its unique union structure, which elevates the voices of Indigenous members. Through designated ATSI positions at various levels of the union hierarchy, Indigenous members have the opportunity to shape policy and practices directly. This inclusive framework ensures that Indigenous perspectives are central to the union's decision-making processes. Looking ahead, the NTEU remains committed to advancing Indigenous employment within the tertiary education sector. With the majority of its agreements now containing Indigenous-specific provisions, the union is focused on addressing emerging challenges, such as cultural load—a concept that encompasses additional work performed by Indigenous staff related to their cultural identity. In conclusion, the NTEU's pioneering efforts in Indigenous employment demonstrate the transformative potential of collective action and targeted advocacy within the union movement. As we celebrate these achievements, it is imperative that we continue to uphold the principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion in our workplaces and beyond.

In Queensland, an employment human rights advocate can indeed assist someone with a Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) claim, though there are some nuances to consider. Role of a Human Rights Advocate Human rights advocates specialise in ensuring that individuals' rights are protected, particularly in contexts where those rights may be infringed upon. This often includes employment, discrimination, and social welfare matters. When it comes to TPD claims, these advocates can play a critical role in supporting claimants through various stages of the process. Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) Claims TPD insurance is typically part of a superannuation policy, designed to provide financial support to individuals who are no longer able to work due to a total and permanent disability. The claim process can be complex and often requires: 1. Understanding the Policy: Knowing the specific terms and conditions of the TPD cover. 2. Medical Evidence: Gathering comprehensive medical evidence to support the claim. 3. Documentation: Completing and submitting necessary documentation accurately. 4. Communication: Engaging with superannuation funds, insurers, and possibly the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) if disputes arise. Advocacy in TPD Claims While human rights advocates do not provide legal advice or act as legal representatives in the traditional sense, they can offer substantial support by: - Assisting with Documentation: Helping individuals understand the requirements and complete necessary forms. - Guiding Through the Process: Providing guidance on what to expect at each stage of the claim. - Supporting Medical Evidence Collection: Advising on the types of medical documentation needed and how to obtain it. - Advocating for Rights: Ensuring that the claimant's rights are upheld throughout the process and that they are treated fairly by the superannuation fund and insurers. Collaboration with Legal Professionals Given the complexity of TPD claims, human rights advocates often collaborate with legal professionals who specialise in insurance and superannuation law. This multidisciplinary approach ensures that claimants receive comprehensive support, combining the advocate's expertise in rights protection with legal advice from solicitors who can navigate the intricacies of insurance law. Conclusion In Queensland, human rights advocates can play a significant role in supporting individuals with TPD claims by providing non-legal assistance, guidance, and advocacy. They can help ensure that the process is more manageable and that claimants' rights are protected. For more complex legal issues, collaboration with legal professionals is advisable to ensure the best possible outcome for the claimant. If you have any questions or need further assistance with a TPD claim or other employment and human rights matters, feel free to reach out to us at 1800AdDVOCATES. We offer this service to MYUNION™ members FREE.

A recent decision concerning the reinstatement of DP World workers dismissed for refusing COVID-19 vaccination has left unresolved questions about the legality of their employer's actions. Vice President Ingrid Asbury previously awarded compensation but declined to reinstate the 24 workers dismissed in 2021 for not adhering to the company's double-vaccination mandate. This decision has raised significant discussion about workplace mandates and consultation requirements. Vice President Asbury found that DP World had not consulted with the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), the affected Sydney and Brisbane workers, or occupational health and safety representatives before enforcing the mandate. Additionally, the company failed to inform the workers of the reasons for their dismissals or provide them with a proper opportunity to respond. Despite these findings, Asbury upheld the company's dismissal reason, noting the workers' significant contribution to the situation and the ongoing validity of the vaccination mandate. One of the workers who complied with the mandate was reinstated, but the vice president dismissed the other reinstatement claims. She maintained that DP World's right to enforce a lawful and reasonable policy in response to a workplace health and safety issue should not be overridden by a small group of non-compliant employees. She also pointed out that the MUA had the option to challenge the mandate's introduction and the subsequent dismissals but chose not to pursue such actions. In a similar case, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) had ruled that BHP's failure to adequately consult with workers at its Mt Arthur mine regarding vaccination deadlines rendered the mandate unlawful and unreasonable. The DP World workers argued that Vice President Asbury misapplied this precedent by not deeming DP World's mandate unlawful due to a lack of consultation, as required under the NSW and Queensland WHS Acts. They claimed this oversight invalidated the policy and, consequently, their dismissals. The workers contended that this issue was significant and of general importance, as it addressed whether a directive issued in breach of legal requirements could be considered unlawful. However, the appeal bench, comprising Deputy Presidents Tony Saunders, Michael Easton, and Tony Slevin, endorsed Vice President Asbury's decision and denied permission to appeal. They noted that the workers did not raise the issue of the mandate's unlawfulness due to non-compliance with WHS Acts during the initial hearing, making it too late to introduce this argument on appeal. The bench acknowledged that the question of lawfulness concerning non-compliance with consultation obligations had not been determined by a Full Bench of the Commission. Nonetheless, they agreed with the vice president's assessment that DP World's mandate was a reasonable measure in response to the circumstances of late 2021, despite the company's failure to fulfil its consultation duties. The case of *Jason Pintley & Ors v DP World Sydney Limited & Anor* [2024] FWCFB 257 has highlighted the complexities and ongoing debates surrounding workplace vaccination mandates and the procedural requirements for their implementation. As legal interpretations continue to evolve, the implications of such decisions will remain a critical area of interest for employers, unions, and workers alike. For those interested in a deeper understanding of this case, you can read the full decision on the Fair Work Commission's website.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has criticised a human resources (HR) consultant for providing "astonishingly poor" advice that led to the unfair dismissal of a long-serving manager. This case highlights significant missteps in the redundancy process and underscores the importance of sound HR practices. After 14 years with Sydney-based construction software provider Companion Systems Pty Limited, a platform experience manager who had recently relocated to the Gold Coast was asked to meet an HR consultant in June last year. During this meeting, the consultant informed the manager of an operational review and offered a $5000 payment for a voluntary redundancy. When the manager suggested a pay cut instead, he was told he was "a cost-cutting exercise." Following this initial meeting, the manager faced difficulties getting answers from the company’s general manager and owner, who was also his father's cousin. Tensions were high, exacerbated by family disagreements over COVID-19 lockdowns and remote work. At a subsequent meeting, the manager was informed of his redundancy on the condition that he returned company property. He returned the laptop after resetting it to factory settings but requested additional time to transfer contacts from his company phone. The situation escalated when the HR consultant sent an email stating that the manager could be summarily dismissed if the phone was not returned by a specific deadline. Despite sending the phone by registered post and providing a tracking number, the manager was accused of emailing malware and erasing company data. Commissioner Jennifer Hunt found that Companion Systems' claim of consulting staff during the operational review was untrue, as no other employees had meetings with the HR consultant. She criticised the decision to conduct a critical meeting in a local café and described the company's handling of the manager's redundancy as "callous and unprofessional." The commissioner noted that resetting the laptop to factory settings was not malicious and could be easily rectified by the company. She condemned the HR consultant's email demanding immediate return of company property as "incredibly disturbing" and one of the most bizarre things she had read. Commissioner Hunt highlighted the negative impact of the HR consultant's poor advice on the company's procedures. She also condemned the consultant's attempt to conduct a reference check with the manager's new employer without his permission. In conclusion, the FWC ordered Companion Systems to pay the manager $34,660 plus superannuation for unfair dismissal. This case serves as a stark reminder of the need for ethical and professional HR practices, particularly during sensitive processes like redundancies. The FWC's decision underscores the importance of clear, compassionate communication and proper procedures in managing redundancies. Employers must ensure their HR consultants provide sound advice and act professionally to avoid legal repercussions and damage to their reputation.

Casual employment is a significant aspect of the Australian workforce, offering flexibility to both employers and employees. Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), casual employment is defined by its lack of firm advance commitment to ongoing work, distinguishing it from permanent or fixed-term employment. The Nature of Casual Employment Irregular Work Patterns: Casual employees typically work on an as-needed basis, with hours that can vary from week to week. This arrangement caters to fluctuating business demands, allowing employers to adjust their workforce according to operational needs. No Ongoing Commitment: One of the defining features of casual employment is the absence of an ongoing obligation for either party. Employers are not required to provide regular work, and casual employees are not expected to accept every shift offered. This flexibility is beneficial in many industries but also introduces a level of unpredictability for casual workers. Casual Loading: To compensate for the lack of entitlements such as paid leave (annual leave, personal/carer’s leave), casual employees receive a higher hourly rate known as "casual loading." This higher pay rate is designed to offset the benefits that permanent employees typically enjoy. No Ongoing Obligation to Offer Work In casual employment, there is no legal requirement for employers to continuously offer work to their casual employees. Similarly, casual employees are under no obligation to accept every work offer. This arrangement provides significant flexibility but can also mean that the availability of work may vary significantly, sometimes leading to periods of little or no work. Abandonment of Employment: A Critical Concept What Constitutes Abandonment? Abandonment of employment occurs when an employee fails to attend work for an extended period without notifying the employer or providing a reasonable explanation. While the Fair Work Act does not specify a set period, common practice suggests that an employee who has been absent and unreachable for a substantial time—such as four months—may be considered to have abandoned their employment. Implications for Casual Employees For casual employees, abandonment of employment can be a complex issue. Given the inherent flexibility of casual work, prolonged absence without communication can lead employers to reasonably conclude that the employee no longer intends to return to work. This is especially pertinent when the employee has not made any effort to stay in touch with the employer. Employer Responsibilities Before concluding that an employee has abandoned their position, employers should take reasonable steps to contact the employee. Documenting attempts to reach out and providing ample opportunity for the employee to respond can help ensure that the process is fair and transparent. It’s crucial for employers to follow fair processes to avoid potential disputes or claims of unfair dismissal. Conclusion Casual employment offers valuable flexibility for both employers and employees but comes with unique considerations. Understanding the lack of ongoing obligation to offer work and the concept of abandonment of employment is essential for both parties. Employers must navigate these aspects carefully to maintain fair and lawful employment practices.