Recent Cases

Workplace Relations: Endeavour Coal v APESMA

The Federal Court has recently handed down its decision in the long running dispute between Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd (a BHP subsidiary) and the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia. The application concerns APESMA’s application to Fair Work Australia for good faith bargaining orders in relation to its Appin Mine in New South Wales. The Federal Court’s decision is the second appeal in this dispute.

Continue Reading

PrintEmail

Workplace Relations: CFMEU v Pilbara Iron Company

The Federal Court of Australia recently handed down a significant decision in relatio to the protections afforded to employees against adverse action by employers. The case is significant because it demonstrates the heavy burden that employers can have managing difficult and cantankerous employees. The principal difficulty is that the burden of demonstrating compliance with the general protections provisions lies on the employer.

Continue Reading

PrintEmail

Workplace Relations: Mifsud v Veolia Transport Sydney Pty Ltd [2012] FMCA 167

Mr Misfud was denied redundancy payments owed to him under a collective agreement by his employer, Veolia Transport Sydney, and the issue arose whether they were thus liable to pay a penalty. Mr Misfud also petitioned for indemnity costs, claiming that Veolia's failure to respond to a settlement offer unreasonably furthered his legal costs.

Continue Reading

PrintEmail

Executive Remuneration in Australia – Productivity Commission’s Report

On 16 April 2010 the Government released its response to the Productivity Commission’s report, “Executive Remuneration in Australia”.

The Government intends to introduce legislation in 2010 to implement these reforms, with the reforms to take effect on 1 July 2011. Further public consultation will be taken during 2010.

Continue Reading

PrintEmail

Workplace Relations: Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) – WesternAustralian Branch v Airflite Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 1723

Fair Work Australia has made its first scope order under the new industrial regime.The order required an employer to bargain with the AMWU for separate deals to cover its employees in Victoria and Western Australia. Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) – WesternAustralian Branch v Airflite Pty Ltd [2010]  FWA 1723

Continue Reading

PrintEmail

Workplace Relations: FWA refuses to make bargaining orders

The bargaining landscape confronting employers remains uncertain. In rejecting the CFMEU's application to have bargaining orders made against Tahmoor Coal, however, Commissioner Roberts of Fair Work Australia found that an employer is not in breach of its good faith bargaining obligations simply because, after extensive negotiations, the employer concludes negotiations are at an impasse. Commissioner Roberts stated that in this case, having reached this conclusion, the employer was entitled to refuse to meet further with the union.

Continue Reading

PrintEmail

Work Health and Safety: Workers Compensation for injury at private party

Is an employer responsible for an employee’s injury which occurs at a private party held on work premises? The NSW Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) has recently answered “yes” to this question, in circumstances where the injured employee’s attendance at the party was motivated by work.

Continue Reading

PrintEmail

Model Workplace Health and Safety Laws

Different occupational health and safety (OHS) laws are currently in place in each State and Territory in Australia. As part of developing a seamless national economy and reforming OHS, the federal government has, with the cooperation of each of the States and Territories, initiated the process of “harmonising” OHS laws. Once the harmonisation process is complete, there will be uniform OHS laws throughout Australia.

Continue Reading

PrintEmail

Unfair Dismissal: Jacqueline Lumley v Bremick Pty Ltd Australia t/a Bremick Fasteners [2014] FWCFB 8278

The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission has found that resolving a workplace conflict by dismissing one of the two workers involved in the conflict was not unfair just because the employer could just have easily chosen to dismiss the other staff member.  


The two employees, Mr Lumley and Ms Cook worked together in a small office. In early 2013, there was a total breakdown in their working relationship, which had a direct impact upon the performance of their jobs.

In July 2013, Ms Lumley made a formal complaint alleging bullying on the part of Ms Cook. The complaint was investigated by the employer and found to be unsubstantiated. The employer conducted a mediation to try to resolve the conflict between the two employees. When that was unsuccessful, the employer put in place a procedure in which it was expected that the employees would first go to their manager to report any problems with their co-worker rather than taking it up directly with the other employee.

Issues continued to arise between the employees. In September 2013 Ms Lumley was sent a final warning letter advising that if there was no improvement in her conduct, her employment may be terminated.

In February 2014 a further altercation occurred between the two employees. During a meeting afterwards, Ms Lumley goaded the manager into dismissing one of the two employees, not expecting that it would be her that would be dismissed. The manager then proceeded to dismiss Ms Lumley with immediate effect. Ms Lumley commenced proceedings claiming that she was unfairly dismissed.

Decision

The Full Bench found that Ms Lumley was not dismissed because she was responsible for the conflict. The reason for the dismissal was the existence of an interpersonal conflict in a small workplace which had reached the point where it had become incapable of any resolution and was affecting the performance of work and relationships with customers. The dismissal was therefore valid and found not to be unfair.

The fact that the situation might equally have been resolved by the dismissal of Ms Cook could not render Ms Lumley’s dismissal unfair. 

 

* PCC Lawyers are a team of employment practitioners based in Sydney, with many years of combined knowledge and experience in workplace law, industrial relations, workplace investigations and training.  They provide a high standard of excellence and an exceptional level of personal service to a variety of clients in the Sydney metropolitan area, Central Coast, regional NSW and interstate.

PrintEmail

Unfair Dismissal: Shea v Energy Australia Services Pty Ltd (No 7) [2014] FCA 1091

Former Director of Corporate and Government Affairs, Ms Kate Shea, alleged that her employer, EnergyAustralia Servives Pty Ltd, took adverse action against her by terminating her employment. Ms Shea made what she described as several workplace complaints and argued that this was the actual reason for her dismissal, not the stated reason of genuine redundancy.

The Trial Judge dismissed the application. Significantly, applications under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) do not usually attract cost orders as it is a non-costs jurisdiction. EnergyAustralia subsequently brought an application for indemnity costs against Ms Shea. Judge Jessup held that due to several unreasonable acts by Ms Shea, which caused her employer to incur costs, she should be liable to pay those costs on an indemnity basis.

Continue Reading

PrintEmail

Unfair Dismissal: Ronald Anderson v Thiess Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 6568

An employee has been awarded almost $30,000 after he was dismissed for sending a work email to colleagues that discriminated and vilified Muslims and incited violence towards them. Whilst the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found that the employer had a valid reason for dismissing the employee, due to the employee’s poor prospects of finding other employment and because he had received no prior warnings, the dismissal was harsh and unreasonable

Continue Reading

PrintEmail

More Articles ...