Search Results

In the classic Australian film The Castle , audiences chuckle as Dennis Denuto argues a High Court case with little more than “the vibe” of the Constitution. It’s a moment etched into our cultural memory, portraying the little guy battling the system with passion, sentiment, and gut instinct. But while this cinematic gem delivers humour and heart, it also serves as a warning for anyone engaged in real-world legal proceedings: emotion, assumption, and “vibes” don’t win cases—facts do. John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, famously said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”  This enduring principle holds true in any courtroom or tribunal, from the Fair Work Commission to a Supreme Court bench. Witness Rants, Exaggeration, and Emotion In advocacy, we regularly encounter situations where a witness may give impassioned evidence full of personal grievances, sweeping statements, or dramatic accusations. These rants, while emotionally compelling, often collapse under scrutiny. The moment a version of events cannot be substantiated with documentary evidence, contemporaneous notes, or corroborating testimony, it becomes vulnerable to challenge. Exaggeration, likewise, can irreparably damage a party’s credibility. Inflating minor workplace slights into broad claims of injustice may feel cathartic, but it risks undermining legitimate grievances. Inconsistent or embellished accounts may cause a tribunal member to question the truth of everything that witness says—even the parts that are accurate. Facts are Stubborn Things Indeed ... “The Vibe” Isn’t Enough Relying on “the vibe” may evoke sympathy, but in adversarial or investigative settings, it simply isn’t persuasive. Decision-makers are bound by statute, case law, and evidentiary rules. They must assess claims not by how much they “feel right”, but by what can be proved. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) , Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) , and other relevant laws rely on objective standards. A subjective feeling of being wronged is not enough; you must show how your rights were legally  breached. For example, a claim that a dismissal was “unfair” in the everyday sense of the word must meet the legal criteria in section 385 of the Fair Work Act . Similarly, an allegation of discrimination must be linked to a protected attribute and causally connected to an adverse action or detriment. The Weight of Evidence In our work as employment and human rights advocates, we continually emphasise the importance of contemporaneous evidence. Diaries, emails, meeting notes, payslips, screenshots—these are the building blocks of persuasive claims. Facts are not just “stubborn” because they are hard to change; they are the bedrock of credible, defensible cases. Tribunals and commissions are not interested in how hurt someone feels—they are interested in what actually happened. Was there a warning given? Was a policy breached? Was medical evidence provided? Was a complaint properly investigated? These are the questions that shape outcomes. The Lesson for All Workers and Complainants If you are pursuing a complaint—whether for unfair dismissal, discrimination, bullying, or wage theft—your first priority should be gathering the facts. Identify who did what, when, and how. Be truthful, be consistent, and resist the urge to overstate or speculate. Credibility is earned by precision and restraint. Advocates can assist by helping frame those facts in the language of the law, ensuring your claim has both emotional authenticity and  legal merit. But we can only work with the raw material that exists. If there are no records, if memories are vague, or if evidence contradicts your claims, even the best advocacy cannot reverse that. Conclusion The world may run on sentiment and sympathy, but justice runs on facts. Whether you’re in a workplace investigation, a conciliation, or before a commission member, remember this: “the vibe” might win a movie, but it’s the facts that win the case. We honour that principle in every matter we pursue. Because in the end, facts—stubborn as they are—are your strongest allies.

One recurring issue we address in our Advocacy work—regardless of whether the matter arises in Sydney, Perth, Melbourne, Darwin, Adelaide, Hobart or anywhere in between—is the misunderstanding that parties in a dispute can somehow “own” a witness. As advocates operating nationally, we regularly explain to both clients and opposing parties that witnesses are not property . Their purpose is not to support one side over the other, but to provide truthful, independent evidence that assists in determining the facts. A Witness’s Duty Is to the Truth, Not a Party Across all tribunals and commissions—from the Fair Work Commission to various state-based human rights and anti-discrimination bodies—witnesses are expected to present their evidence based on their personal knowledge or experience. They are not advocates and must not be pressured to conform to a narrative. If a witness is seen as being coached or rehearsed, or if they appear unwilling to consider talking to another party due to pressure, the credibility of their testimony may be called into question. This is why tribunals often scrutinise the independence  of a witness just as much as the content  of their evidence. There Is No Ownership of Witnesses: A Principle We Uphold Across Australia This Misconception Arises Australia-Wide Whether we're assisting a worker in Western Australia with a general protections application or advising someone in Tasmania on a discrimination complaint, we encounter the same belief: "That’s my witness." We explain—repeatedly—that: No party has a legal right to control a witness. Witnesses are entitled to speak with both sides, or neither, if they choose. Preventing someone from giving evidence or obstructing access to them could amount to interference with the proper administration of justice. This is not just a technicality. It’s a fundamental safeguard in ensuring fair outcomes under Australia’s industrial relations and anti-discrimination frameworks. Consistent Practice Across Jurisdictions Whether a matter is being heard in: the Fair Work Commission , the Australian Human Rights Commission , the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board , the Equal Opportunity Commission of South Australia , or the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission , the expectation is the same: witnesses must give their evidence freely, without pressure, and without allegiance to either party . At 1800ADVOCATES, we guide our clients through this process ethically and professionally. We work with witnesses to ensure their statements are presented clearly and truthfully, but we do not—and must not—influence their account. Our job is to facilitate evidence, not fabricate it. Final Thought There are no "owned" witnesses in any Australian jurisdiction. There are only individuals with a story to tell, and our role as advocates is to ensure they are heard—fairly, respectfully, and without interference. That principle underpins everything we do, as professional Employment and Human Rights Advocates. Sources and Further Reading: I am a witness – Federal Court of Australia Right to work and rights in work – Australian Human Rights Commission

If you've worked for the same employer continuously for nearly a decade, you may be wondering whether you're entitled to long service leave. It’s a common question for many workers like Jenny, who contacted us after approaching her ten-year anniversary in the same position. Here’s a clear breakdown of long-service leave entitlements across Australia: What is Long Service Leave? Long service leave is a period of paid leave granted to employees who have been with the same employer for a long period. The rules vary depending on which state or territory you are in, but generally, employees become entitled to long service leave after seven to ten years of continuous service . Understanding Your Right to Long Service Leave After Nearly 10 Years of Service Eligibility by State or Territory While each jurisdiction has its own legislation, most states allow access to long service leave after 10 years , with pro-rata entitlements  available after 7 years  under certain circumstances (such as resignation due to illness or redundancy). Here’s a general guide by location: Queensland : 8.6667 weeks after 10 years; pro-rata available after 7 years. New South Wales : 2 months (8.6667 weeks) after 10 years; pro-rata after 5 years if the employment ends under certain conditions. Victoria : 6.0667 weeks after 7 years; additional leave after each further 5 years. South Australia : 13 weeks after 10 years; pro-rata after 7 years. Western Australia : 8.667 weeks after 10 years; pro-rata after 7 years. Tasmania : 8.667 weeks after 10 years; pro-rata after 7 years. Northern Territory : 13 weeks after 10 years; pro-rata after 7 years. ACT : 6.0667 weeks after 7 years; additional leave after each further 5 years. National system employees under pre-modern awards or federal instruments : may have entitlements set by the Fair Work Act 2009  or preserved instruments. Key Points to Remember: Continuous service  generally means there haven’t been significant breaks in your employment, though approved leave (like annual or parental leave) is usually counted. You may wish to confirm whether your employment falls under a state scheme or the federal system , particularly if you're employed in sectors like construction, cleaning, or security, which may have portable long-service leave schemes. What You Should Do Check your state’s long service leave laws  or consult the relevant industrial instrument. Review your employment contract or enterprise agreement , if one applies. Keep a record of your start date and any breaks in service. Consider contacting your payroll or HR department  to confirm your entitlements. At 1800ADVOCATES , we support workers in understanding their rights at every stage of their employment journey. If you’re unsure about your long service leave eligibility or feel your entitlements are being denied, reach out to us for tailored support. Let us help you get clarity. You’ve earned it.

Workplace safety is not merely a good practice—it’s a fundamental obligation employers owe to their employees and the wider community. The recent Victorian Court of Appeal case, Supagas Pty Ltd v The King [2025] VSCA 106 , offers critical guidance on how employers must manage workplace risks, clearly outlining the scope and gravity of these legal responsibilities. Background: A Catastrophic Incident On December 1, 2017, an incident at the Supagas Bayswater site had devastating consequences. A worker, John Portelli, who was employed by New Sector Engineering Pty Ltd through a labour-hire arrangement, visited Supagas to collect an acetylene gas cylinder. Unaware of the inherent risks, he placed the cylinder into an enclosed toolbox of his utility vehicle. Tragically, this enclosed environment led to a severe explosion shortly after he left the premises, resulting in significant injuries and widespread property damage. Understanding the Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace: Insights from the Supagas Pty Ltd v The King Decision Legal Proceedings and Initial Findings Supagas faced three charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) : Charge 1:  Failure to maintain a safe system of work for employees. Charge 2:  Failure to adequately instruct and train employees. Charge 3:  Failure to ensure non-employees were not exposed to risks. After extensive deliberation, the jury found Supagas guilty of failing to provide safe systems of work (Charge 1) and failing to protect non-employees (Charge 3). Interestingly, Supagas was acquitted on Charge 2 regarding training, indicating the jury believed training was adequate but systemic safety implementation was insufficient. Appeal and Key Issues Supagas challenged these convictions, arguing that the jury verdicts were logically inconsistent. The company further contended that the prosecutor improperly broadened the case by suggesting a checklist as part of a safety system during closing arguments—a measure not explicitly mentioned in the original charges. They also questioned the trial judge’s guidance to the jury about whether safety procedures must be documented, alleging this caused confusion. Understanding the Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace: Insights from the Supagas Pty Ltd v The King Decision Court of Appeal Decision: Clarifying Employer Obligations The Court of Appeal carefully reviewed these arguments and delivered key clarifications: 1. Consistency in Jury Verdicts The court held the verdicts were consistent and logical. While the jury found Supagas provided adequate training, they rightly concluded the actual system of ensuring safety procedures were consistently applied was lacking. This distinction between providing knowledge versus ensuring ongoing compliance was pivotal. 2. Prosecution Case Boundaries Supagas’ claim about the prosecution improperly introducing a "checklist" concept was dismissed. The court found the prosecutor's remarks were illustrative examples of safety measures rather than an unfair expansion of the charges. Crucially, the trial judge's direction explicitly advised the jury that a checklist was not a required element for a conviction, thus nullifying potential prejudice. 3. Documenting Safety Procedures The appellate court confirmed that the judge's advice to the jury—that documenting safety systems is a matter of fact rather than law—was correct. Documentation, while valuable, is not strictly a legal requirement. However, its presence or absence may influence assessments about the effectiveness of safety management practices. Sentencing: Assessing the Gravity of Safety Breaches Supagas was fined a substantial total of $550,000 ($275,000 per charge), though without conviction. On appeal, the company argued these fines were excessive, contending the sentencing judge misjudged the risk severity. However, the Court of Appeal strongly affirmed that the fines were proportionate and justified by the severity of potential risks and the catastrophic outcomes demonstrated by the explosion. In doing so, the court reiterated critical sentencing principles for occupational safety offences outlined in previous cases: Employers are penalised for the gravity of their breach of statutory duty, not merely the outcomes of breaches. Courts must evaluate both the likelihood of risks arising and the potential severity of the consequences if they do. Here, the court highlighted that transporting acetylene improperly significantly elevates explosion risks, making the company’s lapse a serious breach deserving a strong penalty. Key Takeaways for Employers This case clearly underscores essential obligations employers must heed: Providing training alone is insufficient; robust, systematic safety measures and regular compliance checks are essential. Documentation is valuable, but implementation and consistent practice are even more critical. The potential severity of risks profoundly impacts the gravity assessment in safety breaches, making meticulous risk management crucial. Employers across all industries should view the Supagas decision as an authoritative reminder that workplace safety is a serious, ongoing duty—not a box-ticking exercise. Conclusion: A Clear Message on Workplace Safety The decision in Supagas Pty Ltd v The King  sends an unequivocal message to employers: safety is paramount and demands systematic vigilance. For employees and the wider community, this ruling represents a positive reinforcement of the principle that safety at work is a right, not a privilege. It also affirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding rigorous standards that protect workers from preventable harm. For further details, the full judgment can be accessed here: Supagas Pty Ltd v The King [2025] VSCA 106 . Disclaimer:  This blog post is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult a legal professional for advice tailored to your circumstances.

If you've recently lost your job and feel that the dismissal was unfair, it's crucial to act quickly. In Australia, you usually have just 21 days  from the date of dismissal to lodge an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. But what happens if you've missed this 21-day period? Don't panic yet—under certain "exceptional circumstances," you may still get an extension. This blog explains clearly how the Fair Work Commission assesses whether to grant extra time and gives you practical tips to evaluate your situation. Important Timelines to Keep in Mind Date of dismissal:  This is the day your employment officially ended. 21-day deadline:  Count 21 calendar days from the dismissal date—this is your standard period to lodge your claim. Missed deadline:  If you've missed this date, an extension is only possible under special circumstances. Missed Your 21-day Unfair Dismissal Deadline? Here’s How You Might Still Make a Claim When Can You Get an Extension? The Fair Work Commission doesn't grant extensions lightly. They carefully look at several key areas. Here's a simple checklist of what they'll assess: ✅ 1. Why Did You Miss the Deadline? The Commission wants to understand if your reason was serious and beyond your control. Good examples include: Illness or Injury: Example:  "I was in hospital recovering from surgery and couldn't file my claim in time." Misleading Information: Example:  "My employer didn't clearly explain my dismissal date, so I misunderstood when the deadline started." Family Emergencies: Example:  "A family member passed away suddenly, and my attention was fully occupied." ✅ 2. How Long After the Deadline Did You Act? Short delays (days or up to a week) are easier for the Commission to accept. Longer delays need stronger reasons. Short Delay Example:  "I was three days late because I mistakenly thought weekends weren’t counted." Longer Delay Example (needs stronger reason):  "I was dealing with serious illness for several weeks." ✅ 3. Would an Extension Be Unfair to Your Employer? The Commission also considers whether granting you an extension would make it difficult or unfair for your employer. Less likely unfair:  "All the key witnesses and evidence still exist." Likely unfair:  "A crucial witness has since left the country." ✅ 4. Did You Act Quickly When You Realised the Mistake? Showing that you acted promptly after realising your mistake helps your case. Prompt Action Example:  "As soon as I found out I was late, I contacted an advocate immediately." Delayed Action Example (not helpful):  "Even after realising I missed the deadline, I waited another week." ✅ 5. Does Your Unfair Dismissal Claim Have Merit? Your claim itself must have substance. For instance, you could argue: "My employer fired me without giving me a chance to defend myself properly." "The punishment (firing) was far too harsh compared to what actually happened." Examples of Actual Cases: Approved Case Example:   Nohra v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2010] The employee received confusing dismissal information, leading the Commission to grant extra time. Rejected Case Example:   Patterson v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2011] The employee simply forgot the deadline without a strong reason, so their request was denied. What Should You Do Next? If you believe you meet some of these criteria, gather your evidence quickly: Medical certificates if you were ill. Emails or communications showing confusion about dates. Proof of personal emergencies. Once prepared, contact an advocate to discuss your case promptly. Missing the deadline doesn't always mean the end of your claim. But you must act fast and have strong reasons for your delay.

Coercive control is a concept that has traditionally been associated with intimate relationships, particularly involving teenagers. However, a recent story we heard on ABC Radio Brisbane prompted deeper reflection—revealing that this issue is not confined to young love. The underlying dynamic of power, manipulation, and surveillance can emerge in other spheres too, including the workplace. As Australia's digital and social landscape evolves, so too does the way coercive behaviours manifest—not only between partners, but at times, between employers and employees. Coercive Control and Teen Relationships: A Recap Teenagers today are growing up immersed in digital connectivity. Apps like Life360, Snap Map, and Find My iPhone are often presented as tools for safety and convenience. But within relationships, they can become weapons of surveillance. What starts as "just wanting to know you're safe" can morph into accusations for being unreachable, pressure to share passwords, and isolation from friends. These are hallmarks of coercive control—a pattern of behaviour designed to dominate and limit a person’s autonomy. Read more: eSafety - When 'love' becomes control More resources for young people: Attorney-General's Department – Coercive Control Coercive Control Beyond Teen Romance: When Technology, Employers, and Human Rights Collide When Employers Cross the Line: Digital Coercion at Work Coercive control is not limited to the private or romantic sphere. In some modern workplaces, especially where remote work or constant digital contact is normalised, employees may feel pressured to remain available after hours, respond instantly to emails or messages, or even account for their movements outside rostered time. This type of digital overreach from employers can mirror the same controlling dynamic seen in unhealthy relationships. It may not be overtly abusive, but it fosters fear, stress, and a loss of personal freedom—hallmarks of a coercive environment. Recognising this, Australia has taken a significant legislative step to curb such practices. The Right to Disconnect: A Human Rights-Infused Reform On 26 August 2024, new laws were introduced by the Federal Government granting workers a legal right to disconnect . Under this reform, employees now have the right to ignore calls, messages, and emails from their employer outside of working hours without facing disciplinary action or disadvantage. This new right is based on growing global recognition that constant availability is damaging to health, wellbeing, and work-life balance. The Fair Work Commission provides detailed guidance on the application of these laws: Right to Disconnect Fact Sheet – FWC As outlined by Gilbert + Tobin , the right aims to ensure that workers can "enjoy uninterrupted personal time"  and reduce the expectation of being constantly reachable. This is not just a legal issue—it intersects with broader human rights concerns. Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  recognises the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours. When employers exert digital coercion, they risk infringing on this basic right. Technology-Facilitated Control: One Pattern, Many Contexts Whether in a teenage relationship or a workplace, coercive control thrives when there is a lack of boundaries, knowledge, and enforcement. The tools used may differ—messaging apps, GPS trackers, work communication platforms—but the goal is the same: domination. Just as we teach young people to recognise the red flags of abuse in relationships, we must also empower workers to recognise and resist undue employer pressure facilitated by digital means. Support Services and Further Reading For teens: 1800RESPECT  – https://www.1800respect.org.au National counselling and support service for people impacted by violence. eSafety Commissioner  – Coercive Control and Tech Safety For workers: Fair Work Ombudsman  – www.fairwork.gov.au Conclusion Whether it’s a possessive partner tracking every move, or an employer demanding out-of-hours availability, coercive control in any form is a serious issue. The introduction of the right to disconnect  is a welcome move that recognises the importance of boundaries and respect in all relationships—not just romantic ones. It is time we expanded our understanding of coercive control and equipped every individual—teen or adult—with the tools to identify, challenge, and escape its grip.

The Albanese Government, alongside the National Suicide Prevention Office, has launched the National Suicide Prevention Strategy 2025-2035 an initiative that claims to set a new direction for preventing suicide in Australia. But the real question is: will this actually change anything, or is it just more political rhetoric? For years, we’ve heard promises of action, yet suicide rates remain devastatingly high, especially in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The strategy acknowledges that nine people take their own lives every day in Australia, with more than 150 suicide attempts daily, yet governments continue to approach the crisis with reports, strategies, and media statements instead of tangible, immediate action. One of the supposed cornerstones of this strategy is the Culture Care Connect program, led by NACCHO Aboriginal Health Australia, which focuses on culturally safe suicide prevention planning. It is also designed to align with the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Strategy by Gayaa Dhuwi (Proud Spirit). While this recognition is essential, the reality is that Aboriginal suicide rates have continued to rise despite decades of so-called investment in Indigenous-led solutions. If this strategy is just another announcement without real, on-the-ground changes, it won’t mean much to the communities who are losing loved ones at an alarming rate. The Grim Reality - Words Are Not Enough Every day in Australia: Nine lives lost to suicide More than 150 attempts to take their own life Over 3,000 lives lost each year The effects of suicide are catastrophic, and yet successive governments’ both Labor and Liberal, have continued to let down the most vulnerable by failing to fund real, accessible crisis support. This new strategy promises a compassionate, evidence-based suicide prevention system, but without serious structural change, how is this different from all the previous strategies that have failed? Show Us the Action - Not Just More Announcements The Albanese Government is throwing $69 million into the National Suicide Prevention Leadership and Support Program (NSPLSP), but how much of this will actually reach the frontlines where it’s needed most? Bureaucratic funding models have historically failed to deliver resources directly to those who need them, with red tape often preventing real progress. Similarly, the $16.6 million allocated to First Nations suicide prevention programs last year sounds good in a press release, but we have yet to see measurable improvements in outcomes. Where is the accountability for past funding failures? How much of this will go towards actual crisis intervention instead of research reports and administrative costs? A New Approach Or Just a Rebranding of the Old One? Minister Butler says: Over the last two decades, on average, nine lives have been tragically lost to suicide every day. It is clear we need a new approach to how we prevent suicide as a nation. We’ve heard this before. Every time a new government takes office, they repackage the same promises, launch another “new approach, and make grand statements about working together to prevent suicide. Meanwhile, communities continue to suffer while waiting for real change. Yes, states and territories have endorsed this strategy but what does that actually mean? Until we see real, measurable improvements, including better access to mental health services, crisis intervention programs, and culturally competent care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, this is just another political announcement. If You Need Help, Don’t Wait for Government Action If you or someone you know is struggling, support is available now. Call 13YARN on 13 92 76 (24/7) to speak with a trained Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Crisis Supporter. Until governments start delivering real action instead of more reports and strategies, it’s up to communities to support each other. Let’s keep the pressure on to ensure this doesn’t become just another empty promise. #CloseTheGap #ActionNotWords #SuicidePrevention #GayaaDhuwi #CultureCareConnect

Introduction Discrimination in employment on the basis of a criminal record is a growing issue in Australia, raising serious questions about fairness, rehabilitation, and workplace integrity. The case of Ms Jessica Smith v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd [2018] AusHRC 125  provides a crucial example of how employers must properly assess criminal history checks and comply with anti-discrimination laws. This case was heard by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), which found that Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd (Redflex) unlawfully discriminated against Ms Smith by withdrawing a conditional job offer due to her past criminal record. The decision highlights the importance of making individualised assessments in recruitment rather than implementing blanket exclusions. At 1800ADVOCATES , we support workers facing workplace discrimination and advocate for fair treatment in employment. This case demonstrates the need for employers to ensure their hiring practices align with human rights protections. Employment Discrimination and Criminal Records: The Case of Ms Jessica Smith v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd [2018] AusHRC 125 The Case: Ms Jessica Smith v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd Ms Jessica Smith applied for a position as a Mobile Speed Camera Operator (MSCO) with Redflex in September 2016. She successfully completed the interview process and was offered the job on a conditional basis, subject to a criminal history check and medical assessment. Ms Smith disclosed that her National Police Check (NPC) would likely reveal disclosable offences and requested that the check be conducted before her medical assessment. A few weeks later, Redflex withdrew her job offer, citing her criminal record as the reason. Ms Smith sought clarification from Redflex and requested an opportunity to discuss her circumstances. Redflex did not respond, prompting her to lodge a complaint with the AHRC, alleging discrimination on the basis of her criminal record. Ms Smith’s Criminal Record Ms Smith’s criminal history included: 2004  – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm  (Community service order, 80 hours) 2007  – Possession of a prohibited drug (marijuana)  (Fined $150 plus court costs) Redflex’s Justification for Withdrawing the Offer Redflex argued that: The MSCO role required candidates to pass a criminal history check. The contract with Roads and Maritime Services NSW (RMS) required Redflex to ensure all employees were fit and proper persons. Ms Smith’s criminal record indicated she was unsuitable for the role, as it involved dealing with the public in potentially volatile situations. Legal Issues Considered by the AHRC The AHRC examined whether: Redflex’s decision constituted an exclusion from employment on the basis of a criminal record. The exclusion impaired Ms Smith’s equality of opportunity in employment. Redflex could justify the exclusion based on the inherent requirements  of the job. Findings of the AHRC The AHRC found that: Redflex discriminated against Ms Smith  by rescinding her job offer based solely on her criminal record. The exclusion was not justified  under the inherent requirements  of the role. Ms Smith’s past offences did not automatically disqualify her  from employment. Redflex failed to conduct an individualised assessment , relying instead on broad assumptions about Ms Smith’s character. There was no evidence that RMS required Ms Smith’s exclusion , as Redflex had not referred her case to RMS for review. Recommendations by the AHRC The AHRC recommended that Redflex: Pay Ms Smith $2,500 in compensation  for the hurt, humiliation, and distress caused. Revise its recruitment policies  to align with AHRC guidelines on criminal record discrimination. Train HR and recruitment staff  on fair assessment of criminal history in employment. To Redflex’s credit, the company accepted the recommendations, implemented an anti-discrimination policy, and provided training for its staff. What This Case Means for Workers and Employers For Workers: Understanding Your Rights This case highlights important protections for individuals with a criminal record: A past conviction does not automatically disqualify  you from employment. Employers must justify exclusions  based on a criminal record by demonstrating that the conviction directly impacts the job’s inherent requirements . You have the right to request an individualised assessment  and to explain your circumstances before an employer makes a final decision. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you can lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission . For Employers: Best Practices in Hiring Employers should: Assess criminal records on a case-by-case basis , ensuring a direct connection between the conviction and the job’s requirements. Avoid blanket policies that automatically exclude candidates  with any criminal history. Ensure recruitment decisions align with anti-discrimination laws . Follow the AHRC’s On the Record: Guidelines for the Prevention of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of Criminal Record . Engage with candidates about their history  rather than making assumptions. Balancing Workplace Integrity with Human Rights While employers must ensure workplace integrity and safety, they must also balance this obligation with fair and lawful hiring practices . The AHRC emphasised that an exclusion based on a criminal record should only occur where there is a tight correlation  between the offence and the job’s requirements. In this case, Ms Smith’s past convictions—one for a minor drug offence and another for an assault committed over a decade prior—did not necessarily impact her ability to perform the MSCO role. The AHRC found that Redflex’s decision was based on assumptions rather than a fair assessment of her individual merits. How 1800ADVOCATES Supports Workers Facing Discrimination As employment and human rights advocates, 1800ADVOCATES  is committed to assisting workers who experience discrimination. While we do not provide legal representation, we can: Help you understand  your rights under Australian law. Assist in preparing complaints  to the Australian Human Rights Commission or Fair Work Commission. If you believe you have been unfairly treated in the workplace due to a criminal record, contact 1800ADVOCATES  for general information and guidance. Final Thoughts: Fair Employment for All The case of Ms Jessica Smith v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd  serves as a crucial reminder that workers should not be unfairly judged on their past, and that employers must ensure their hiring practices comply with human rights principles. Employment discrimination laws exist to provide equal opportunity  for all Australians, including those with prior convictions. At 1800ADVOCATES , we are committed to ensuring that every worker has a fair chance at employment, free from unlawful discrimination. If you need support regarding workplace discrimination, reach out to 1800ADVOCATES  today. Disclaimer The following article provides general information only and is not intended as legal advice. 1800ADVOCATES  is not a law firm, and we do not provide legal representation. We are employment and human rights advocates committed to supporting workers in understanding their rights. If you require legal advice, we recommend consulting a qualified solicitor or legal service provider.

Introduction Discrimination in employment based on a person’s criminal record is a significant issue in Australia, raising complex questions about fairness, rehabilitation, and workplace integrity. The case of BE v Suncorp Group Ltd [2018] AusHRC 121  highlights these challenges and underscores the importance of ensuring fair and lawful recruitment practices. In this case, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) found that Suncorp discriminated against a job applicant by rescinding his conditional job offer due to his criminal history. This decision is a critical reminder for both employers and job seekers about the obligations and rights that exist under Australian law. At 1800ADVOCATES , we work to ensure that individuals facing discrimination in the workplace understand their rights and can take action when they experience unfair treatment. Employment Discrimination and Criminal Records: Lessons from BE v Suncorp Group Ltd [2018] AusHRC 121 The Case: BE v Suncorp Group Ltd In 2015, BE applied for a Work@Home Claims Assist Consultant  position with Suncorp. He successfully progressed through the recruitment process and was offered the role, conditional upon passing a background check. When Suncorp discovered BE’s criminal history—which included prior convictions for child pornography offences in 2008 and a 2015 conviction for failure to comply with reporting obligations—it rescinded the offer. BE lodged a complaint with the AHRC, arguing that he was unfairly excluded from employment due to his criminal record. Suncorp defended its decision, arguing that BE’s record was relevant to the inherent requirements  of the role, particularly in relation to trustworthiness and good character. After reviewing the case, the AHRC determined that Suncorp’s actions amounted to discrimination under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986  (Cth). Legal Issues Considered by the AHRC The AHRC examined several key legal issues: Whether BE was excluded from employment due to his criminal record. Whether this exclusion impaired his equality of opportunity in employment. Whether Suncorp’s exclusion of BE was justified based on the inherent requirements  of the role. Findings of the AHRC The AHRC found that: Suncorp discriminated against BE  by rescinding his job offer based on his criminal record. The exclusion was not justified  under the inherent requirements  of the role. BE’s past convictions did not automatically disqualify him  from the position. Suncorp’s recruitment process lacked an individualised assessment , relying instead on broad assumptions about BE’s suitability. BE’s prior work experience  in customer service and dispute resolution demonstrated his ability to work in a role requiring confidentiality and professionalism. As a result, the AHRC recommended that Suncorp: Pay compensation  to BE for the distress caused by the discrimination. Revise its recruitment policies  to prevent discrimination based on criminal records. Conduct training  for HR and recruitment personnel on how to assess criminal history fairly and in compliance with human rights protections. What This Means for Workers and Employers For Workers: Understanding Your Rights This case reinforces that: A criminal record does not automatically disqualify you from employment. Employers must conduct a fair and individualised assessment  rather than applying a blanket exclusion policy. If an employer denies you a job due to your criminal record, they must justify why your record makes you unsuitable for the role. You may have grounds to challenge  an unfair decision by lodging a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. For Employers: Ensuring Fair Recruitment Practices Employers must: Assess criminal records on a case-by-case basis , ensuring a direct connection between the conviction and the inherent requirements of the job. Avoid blanket policies that automatically exclude candidates with any criminal history. Train HR staff on anti-discrimination laws and fair hiring practices . Follow the AHRC’s On the Record: Guidelines for the Prevention of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of Criminal Record  to ensure compliance. Balancing Workplace Integrity with Human Rights Employers often raise concerns about trust and integrity when hiring individuals with a criminal record. However, Australian law requires that any exclusion based on a criminal record must be directly linked to the inherent requirements  of the job. In BE v Suncorp , the AHRC found that there was no clear link  between BE’s past convictions and his ability to perform the role of a Work@Home Consultant. This highlights the importance of avoiding assumptions  and ensuring that hiring decisions are made based on an individual’s qualifications and capabilities rather than their past mistakes. How We Support Workers Facing Discrimination As employment and human rights advocates, 1800ADVOCATES  is committed to assisting workers who experience discrimination in the workplace. While we do not provide legal representation, we offer guidance and support to workers who believe they have been treated unfairly. We can: Help you understand  your rights under Australian law. Assist you in preparing a complaint  to the AHRC or Fair Work Commission. If you believe you have been unfairly treated in the workplace due to a criminal record, contact us at 1800ADVOCATES  for general information and guidance. Final Thoughts: Fair Employment for All The case of BE v Suncorp  serves as a crucial reminder that workers should not be unfairly judged on their past and that employers must ensure that their hiring practices comply with human rights principles. Employment discrimination laws exist to provide equal opportunity  for all Australians, including those with prior convictions. At 1800ADVOCATES , we remain dedicated to ensuring fairness, equity, and justice in employment. If you need support regarding workplace discrimination, reach out to 1800ADVOCATES  today. Disclaimer This article provides general information only and is not intended as legal advice. 1800ADVOCATES  is not a law firm, and we do not provide legal representation. We are employment and human rights advocates committed to supporting workers in understanding their rights. If you require legal advice, we recommend consulting a qualified solicitor or legal service provider.

Misusing Ritalin, particularly through snorting, can have serious consequences for a person’s employment. Many workplaces prioritise safety, productivity, and compliance with drug policies, meaning that substance abuse can jeopardise job security. Below are some key ways in which snorting Ritalin can negatively affect employment. 1. Decline in Job Performance While some individuals misuse Ritalin to enhance focus and productivity, prolonged misuse often leads to the opposite effect. Side effects such as anxiety, agitation, memory impairment, and mood swings can result in: Reduced concentration and decision-making ability Increased errors and poor work quality Inconsistent productivity and missed deadlines Difficulty maintaining professional relationships with colleagues and clients The Impact of Snorting Ritalin on Employment 2. Workplace Safety Risks Many industries, particularly those involving machinery, driving, or hazardous environments, require employees to be alert and clear-headed. The stimulant effects of Ritalin, combined with potential withdrawal symptoms, can cause: Impaired judgment and reaction time Increased risk of workplace accidents and injuries Violation of workplace health and safety (WHS) policies, which could result in termination 3. Breach of Workplace Drug Policies Most employers have strict drug and alcohol policies that prohibit the use of controlled substances without a valid prescription. Snorting Ritalin could result in: Positive drug test results during routine or random workplace testing Breach of an employment contract or company policies Disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal 4. Legal and Professional Consequences For employees in regulated professions—such as healthcare, law enforcement, finance, and education—substance misuse can have serious legal and ethical ramifications. Consequences may include: Loss of professional accreditation or licences Breach of ethical codes of conduct Criminal charges if caught possessing or misusing prescription medication Reputational damage that affects future employment opportunities 5. Increased Absenteeism and Unreliability Substance misuse often leads to higher rates of absenteeism due to health complications, withdrawal symptoms, or mental health struggles. Frequent sick days, late arrivals, or unplanned leave can: Affect team performance and morale Lead to warnings or performance management processes Create job instability, making it difficult to secure future roles 6. Risk of Workplace Discrimination and Stigma Employees struggling with substance misuse may face stigma in the workplace, making it harder to seek help. Some employers may: Assume the employee is unreliable or incapable of performing their duties Withhold career advancement opportunities due to concerns about responsibility or stability Discriminate against the employee, despite workplace protections against disability or health-related conditions Seeking Support and Maintaining Employment If an employee is struggling with Ritalin misuse, early intervention can help prevent job loss and long-term career damage. Steps to consider include: Accessing Employee Assistance Programs (EAP):  Many workplaces offer confidential counselling and support services. Seeking Medical and Rehabilitation Support:  Engaging with a doctor or addiction specialist can help manage substance dependence. Discussing Workplace Adjustments:  In some cases, employees may be able to request reasonable accommodations to address underlying health issues. Conclusion Snorting Ritalin can have severe consequences for employment, affecting job performance, workplace safety, and legal standing. While some may misuse it to cope with work demands, the risks far outweigh any short-term benefits. Employees facing substance-related challenges should seek professional support to protect both their health and career. Disclaimer We offer this information in our capacity as Employment and Human Rights Advocates and do not offer it as legal advice, as legal service, or as legal practitioners. 1800ADVOCATES Pty Ltd. Should you wish to seek legal advice on these matters, we recommend consulting a legal practitioner. Author: Brian AJ Newman, LLB Principal Employment and Human Rights Advocate

The idea that holding a law degree automatically defines someone as a lawyer is a misconception that I’ve worked hard to challenge. Much like possessing a truck licence doesn’t make someone a truck driver, having a law degree doesn’t dictate one’s identity or career path. For me, my law degree was never about becoming “just a lawyer”—it was about building something far more meaningful: a career as a professional advocate in industrial relations and human rights. A Legacy of Love and Determination My journey into studying law was not driven by personal ambition, but by love. It was a decision inspired by my father, Brian Newman Snr, who dreamed of becoming a lawyer but never had the opportunity to pursue that path. When he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, I made a promise—to honour his dream by earning a law degree in his name. The degree was not merely a qualification; it became a deeply personal tribute to my father. When I was awarded the degree, it bore only the name “Brian Newman,” a testament to the shared effort between us. My father passed away just twelve days later, and as we said our final goodbyes, I placed a copy of that degree in his coffin. It was my way of ensuring he carried a piece of that dream with him. This degree represents so much more than academic achievement. It embodies love, resilience, and the values my father instilled in me—integrity, dedication, and the courage to carve out my own path. A Career Built on Advocacy From industrial disputes to unfair dismissal cases and human rights advocacy, my career has centred on standing up for those who often lack a voice. Advocacy has taken me into workplaces, tribunals, and commissions, where I’ve worked tirelessly to deliver practical, meaningful solutions for my clients. This work does not require a practising certificate. What it demands is a deep understanding of the systems that govern workplaces and human rights and a passion for justice. My expertise has been developed over decades of navigating these complexities, not from standing in courtrooms but from making a tangible difference in people’s lives. Not a Lawyer, But an Advocate Unlike many law graduates who aspire to become solicitors or barristers, I’ve never desired to join the legal profession in its traditional sense. The title of “lawyer” holds no appeal for me. Instead, I’ve found my calling in advocacy—where I can work directly with clients, approach challenges creatively, and focus on achieving results that matter. Australia has no shortage of lawyers, but what it often lacks are professional advocates who can navigate the intersections of industrial relations and human rights. That’s where I’ve chosen to focus my skills and energy, building a career that aligns with my values and purpose. The Journey Ahead In 2025, I will return to Griffith University to pursue a Master of International Law, further deepening my knowledge and expanding my ability to advocate on a global scale. This next step reflects my continued commitment to the causes I champion—fairness, equity, and justice. I am content in my place in the world, proud of the work I do, and determined to make a lasting impact. Advocacy is not just a job for me; it is a calling that allows me to challenge injustices, empower others, and honour the legacy of love and determination that brought me to where I am today. Rising Above Dishonest Claims The path of advocacy is not without challenges. Over the years, I’ve encountered dishonest claims from former clients or associates who, when dissatisfied, have accused me of misrepresenting myself as a lawyer. These allegations are baseless and could not be further from the truth. Since 2001, I’ve built my career as a professional advocate in industrial relations and human rights—not as a lawyer, but as someone dedicated to standing with those in need. While such claims can be triggering for someone like me, living with severe PTSD, I remain steadfast in my commitment to this work. My strength to continue comes from my daughters, my family, and my friends, who remind me daily of the importance of what I do. Advocacy is not about titles or credentials—it’s about action, impact, and staying true to one’s values. For me, there is no greater fulfilment than knowing I’ve made a difference in the lives of others.

Employment contracts are much like light switches. They govern the flow of energy (or work) in the employment relationship, keeping the light (employment) on. But when the time comes for that light to be turned off – when employment ends – someone has to flip the switch. This is where resignation, dismissal, and deeds of settlement come into play. Let’s break it down simply. Who Flips the Switch? When an employment relationship ends, the light switch – the employment contract – must be turned off by someone. But who does it depends on the circumstances: • Resignation: This happens when the employee decides to turn off the switch. It’s a voluntary act where the employee signals their intent to end their role within the organisation. Typically, the employee provides notice as outlined in their contract or industrial agreements. • Dismissal: In this case, it’s the employer who flips the switch. Dismissal occurs when the employer decides to terminate the employment relationship. This could be due to redundancy, performance issues, misconduct, or other factors. Employers must follow strict legal and contractual obligations when dismissing an employee to ensure fairness and compliance with the law. While both result in the light being turned off, who flips the switch makes a big difference in terms of legal and reputational implications. Why Does It Matter Who Turns Off the Switch? The difference between resignation and dismissal isn’t just semantics – it has real-world implications: 1. Legal Rights and Obligations Resignation generally doesn’t give rise to claims such as unfair dismissal unless it was forced (known as constructive dismissal). Dismissal, on the other hand, can trigger claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, or adverse action, depending on the circumstances. 2. Notice and Entitlements When an employee resigns, they’re usually required to provide notice as outlined in their employment contract. If they fail to do so, the employer may have grounds to deduct certain entitlements. Conversely, if an employer dismisses an employee, they must provide notice or payment in lieu, except in cases of serious misconduct. 3. Reputation and Future Prospects Resignation often carries less stigma than dismissal. Being able to state on future job applications that you resigned, rather than being dismissed, can have a significant impact on career opportunities. What Is a Deed of Settlement, and Why Include Resignation? When the employment relationship ends in a mutually agreed way, it’s common to formalise the terms in a deed of settlement. This legally binding agreement sets out the conditions under which the contract is terminated and ensures both parties understand their rights and obligations. One key feature of many deeds of settlement is the inclusion of resignation. Here’s why: 1. Clarity and Certainty Including resignation in the deed makes it clear that the employee voluntarily flipped the switch, ending the contract. This avoids disputes about whether the employment ended by resignation, dismissal, or mutual termination. 2. Avoiding Legal Claims If the deed specifies that the employee resigned, it can preclude claims such as unfair dismissal, general protections, or breach of contract. This creates a “clean break” for both parties, ensuring the end of the employment relationship is final and without ongoing disputes. 3. Reputation Management For the employee, agreeing to include resignation can protect their professional reputation. It allows them to move forward without the potential stigma of being dismissed. 4. Compliance and Finality The deed ensures all outstanding obligations – such as notice payments, leave entitlements, and waivers of claims – are settled. By documenting the reason for termination, it reduces the risk of misunderstandings or further disputes. An Analogy: Turning Off the Light Switch Think of an employment contract as a light switch. As long as the switch is on, the employment relationship continues. But when it’s time for the light to go out, someone has to flip the switch – either the employee or the employer. Including resignation in a deed of settlement is like agreeing on who flipped the switch and why. It ensures everyone knows how and why the light went out, leaving no room for disputes or confusion later. The Importance of Getting It Right Whether you’re an employee or an employer, understanding who flips the switch and how it’s recorded can make all the difference. For employees, it can impact your career, your reputation, and your legal rights. For employers, it’s a way to protect your organisation from future claims and ensure compliance with legal obligations. By formalising these details in a deed of settlement, both parties can walk away with clarity and peace of mind, knowing the light has been turned off in a way that’s fair, final, and agreed upon. If you’re facing a situation where a deed of settlement is being proposed, it’s crucial to understand the implications of resignation versus dismissal. Both have their place, but agreeing on who flipped the switch – and documenting it clearly – is essential for a smooth and fair transition. For more guidance on employment contracts, resignations, or dismissals, visit 1800ADVOCATES  or contact us directly.