Fair Work Act 1995 Case Study

As you are aware, the decision by the Court of the Barton v. Rona case (2012 ONSC 3809) recognized that although Mr. Barton’s misconduct was serious, his specific acts of misconduct were not severe enough to warrant his dismissal. The Court felt that in this situation, a stern warning to him never again to permit a safety violation by an employee would have been sufficient (p.13, para. 55). This was particularly the case, based on your investigation you have performed on April 24, 2009, given that nothing in his excellent work record and no prior infractions suggested that he would not be amenable to such discipline (p.10, para. 40) or that he would repeat such misconduct in the future (p.9, para. 38). Given that the Court could not find that his misconduct met the threshold of striking at the heart of the employment relationship (p.14, para. 55), it concluded that Rona had breached Mr. Barton’s employment contract, and Mr. Barton was entitled to damages as a result (p.14, para. 56).

The only problem is that they allowed an inexperienced trainer to run the class. It may be because Lisa was inexperienced that she tripped she should have known to have placed the player in another spot. Nonetheless, Val and Tom are guilty of violating both the Industrial Relations Act (QLD) and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (NSW and VIC) which set out the requirements of what employers must do to ensure a safe work environment for employees. Each mandates that employers:

Respondent sought compensation from her employer Comcare under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Commonwealth). It was argued that she suffered injuries during the course of her employment.

Fair Work Australia (FWA) was established by the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and will commence operations on 1 July 2009. Fair Work Australia is one of two institutions established to administer the provisions of the Act and to provide a framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations that promote economic prosperity and social inclusion. The Act also establishes the office of the Fair Work Ombudsman to undertake compliance, education and advice functions. Fair Work Australia and the Fair Work Ombudsman will develop cooperative and seamless approaches to the delivery of services to employees, employers and organisations.

Techtron Corporation is a developer and manufacturer of chemical substance converter systems for small and medium-size automobiles. Techtron has several international accounts including Kia Motors and the Hyundai Mobis network. Techtron has recently landed a contract to produce catalytic converter systems for the second generation Kia Sorrento, manufactured in West Point, Georgia, and are bidding on being the main supplier for the new Kia final assembly plant located in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. In addition, Techtron is in the final stages of completing their new manufacturing facility located in Lansing, Michigan near two major interstates, the senior leadership and support staff is in place however, the company is now ready to begin

The statutory claim for unfair dismissal recognises that the common law cannot give adequate protection to the employees through the contract of employment, in that wrongful dismissal claim depends upon a breach of contract of the employment, usually in the form of inadequate notice being given by the employer. Many dismissals can be considered unfair that do not amount to the breach of the contract, for the wrongful dismissal claims look not to intention, motive, or the effect on an employee of a termination of the relationship nor to the procedural protections, but merely to the form of in which that relationship has been brought to the end. This paper will compare and contrast the different area between wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal.

The Fair Labor Standards Act was established in June of 1938 in order to protect workers from abuse, overworking, and child labor as well as to ensure that employees are at least making minimum wage (Perez, 2015). The FLSA is always being tweaked and updated in order to keep up with the ever changing world. It was updated numerous times for minimum wage in order to allow citizens to attempt to become part of the middle class, then updated again to distinguish how many hours are allowed in the work week as well as equal pay for women (Perez, 2015). All together this act was put in place to protect and aid the working class and to allow them what is right and fair.

The legal system plays a vital part in balancing the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees. The extents to which these rights and responsibilities are adequately balanced by the law are lacking in certain areas and as a result non-legal avenues of maintaining this equilibrium are pursued. The legal system attempts to provide sufficient guidance for workplace related issues in the reform brought about by the 2009 Fair Work Act (Cth) and the regulations it has implemented. However, whilst issues such as discrimination, safety, leave and Termination of employment highlight the significant deficiencies of the legal system, they also serve as evidence of the substantial effort of the law in providing justice for employees and employers. The legal system makes is vital to ensuring a safe and just environment in the workplace however further

Grievance discussion case 3, safety gloves discharge with just cause appeared very straightforward. This was a case where an employee clearly was not abiding by her union contract. As an arbitrator, I would side on behalf of the Barrera Recycling Company and manager Rafael Gomez. Using the seven tests of just cause it is easy to identify that the company’s actions were appropriate under the circumstances. First Erin McNamara’s had multiple safety violations all within her first year of being transferred to the Los Angeles plant, she received several verbal warnings outlining her violations, she received a three day suspension with cause and she still continued to violate her union contract agreement. According to Budd (2014) just cause requires

On October 1st, Maryland’s new Equal Pay for Equal Work Act took effect which forbidden employers from providing less than auspicious employment opportunities to or discerning against employees by compensating different rates built on their sex or gender identity. Under the new law, employers will be prohibited from trusting on sex or gender identity to allocate or direct employees into less advantage career paths or positions. They will also be excluded from failing to provide info about raises or advancement in full variety of professions or career tracks accessible, and they will not be able to limit or remove employees of employment opportunities that would otherwise be available to them. This law permits employers to have a written policy

In 1998, Congress passed the IRS Reconstructing and Reform Act after hearings held by Congress in 1996 and 1997. There were many changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Relating to individuals, the act states that people who fail to provide their taxpayer identification numbers are not allowed to take the earned income credit for the year in which the failure occurs. Individuals can deduct interest expense paid on certain student loans. Also the exclusion, from income, of gain on the sale of a principal residence is prorated for certain taxpayers. And the use of a continuous levy must be specifically approved by the IRS before the levy is effective.

The complainant declares that his right to bring a cause of action had not been waived before the civil court by the employee’s injuries and damages suffered in the course of his employment moreover, the injuries and damages are enforceable when the hearing loss and the tunnel carpal was based on the failure of the employer to provide a safe work place when had a new work condition. The statutory employer did not warn to the employee of the hazards of the employment, which was not controlled by a statutory employer’s safety guard policy and the worker suffered an increase of noise level when the door of the jointly production areas was opened proportionate to him an uncomfortable environment to lunch, to dinner, and to rest when had no safety equipment and assistance or when the injury results from the employee performing work where other did not want to do.

Next was the Fadel Yehya vs A E Group claim. The claimant alleged injuries to his back and knees due to heavy lifting at work. The claimant had quit his position with the employer prior to alleging any work related injuries. The claimant began treating for several alleged injuries. Video evidence was reviewed showing him extremely active at work and outside of work. The claim was ultimately facilitated. Ms. Hadley recommends that we attempt to settle this claim to avoid future medical or potential surgery. The Trustees discussed this claim and asked several questions. Ultimately they agreed with Ms. Hadley’s recommendation. Mr. Hartnett made a motion to settle the Yehya claim for up to $22,169.20. Mr. Gabrysh seconded, motion carried.

The claimant able to claim for a broken wrist because her work was integrated into circus and a contract of employment was existed. Gavin was follow directly company’s instruction, and fixed working hour on weekday in company’s office premises. Therefore, he is an employee and integral part of organization of the company. Gavin has entered into a written contract undertakes with Triple Edge Sdn Bhd until the company terminate Gavin and Suresh for provided the service for a period of three year. Gavin has the right on the terminated employment contract against the company. In case of Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison Ltd v Macdonald & Evans Ltd (1952), Lord Denning decided that even though the employer had no control over the employee who is integrated with others company is an employee. (Sarah & Vida, A. 2009, pg 452-454) The lack of integration into the company and other circumstances meant that Suresh was an independent contractor, not an

In addition, the RFOA provides possible examples of factors that may be relevant to determining termination as reasonable. If the factor of termination directly affects the employer’s business, it may be justified as reasonable with appropriate evidence to back it up. Also, it will be taken into consideration if the employer provided further steps to address the problem accurately such as training, guidance, instructions, etc,. This information will strengthen the employer’s defense claim because it will show that even before termination, the problem was addressed and action was taken to help the employee prevent it from happening again. The EEOF article also stated another factor that may be considered is, “the degree of the harm to individuals within the protected age group, in terms of both the extent of injury and the numbers of persons adversely