The And Current State Of The Law Governing Workplace Relationships

Given the culture these days of “No Win - No Fee” solicitors, the majority of employers have legal expenses cover that allows them to be guided through all employment issues by professionals who have the expertise in employment law. Owners/managers are advised to use this service for even the smallest employment issue as not following due process can prove costly for employers. In addition, these experts and the advice they give are non-biased and in accordance with current employment legislation.

Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2009). Employment law for business. (6 ed., pp. 247-249). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

The implementation of the Fair Work Act 2009 which came into force on January 1st 2010, was to create a national workplace relations system for the purpose of setting wages and conditions of employment. This legislation is overlooked by the Fair Work Commission and ombudsman, whose role is to maintain a safety net of minimum wages and conditions and ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act. The creation of the Fair Work Act (2009) is to regulate business cooperation’s for the purpose of providing safety nets for minimum wages and entitlements, flexible working arrangements and ensure fairness at the workplace. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, ten National Employment Standards

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

The literature to be utilized for this preliminary assessment will include a review of the history behind this employment law policy. Proceeding will be an evaluation of the political context of the proposed regulation, in an effort to gain an understanding of where the proposal stands with public proponents and oppositionist. This assessment of the political context also lends itself to be followed by an analysis of where the policy currently stands within the legislative

The findings suggest that the above authors’ approach could be useful for future and helpful in this literature review. Within the studies some weakness mentioned were the down side of the legal system and if the at will employment law is challenged too much the it may serve to undermine the legal environment.

Prerogatives at all levels should take into consideration employers in the nation when it comes to making agreements with them. As such the prerogatives should not take higher priorities in a society with very many and large unions. The employers must be heard and a collective agreement between the different parties should be put into consideration. This explains that those in power should not take the power vested up them as a right, they should ensure that their subjects are well taken care of and their needs met.

The for-cause dismissal system created by s 103 is a key aspect of enhancing fair employment relations, by protecting employees in an area of significant power imbalance. Unjustified dismissal takes up 65% of all personal grievance cases there is no denying that s 103 is a key piece of legislation for employee protection (Rasmussen, 2009). Before the ERA was amended in 2004 it is argued that unjustified dismissal clauses from the 1970’s legislation heavily favoured employers as there was no strict definition as to what was deemed ‘unjustified’, creating an imbalance of the employer-employee relationship (Roth, 2001). The amendment which introduced s 103(a) was a welcomed addition to the act from an employment rights perspective as it gave employees

The Workplace Relations Act has managed to amalgamate the functions fulfilled by the five bodies mentioned above to establish a unified system of address. However, it could be argued that this may not be so simple in that it makes the system more obscure and leaves room for error and the need for a very good employment law practitioner to deduce the meaning of the various sections of the Act to do with interpretation of legislation. In the academic paper by Lord Bingham entitled “The Rule of Law”, he reiterated “The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictive” . He further states “It is one thing to move the law a little further along a line on which it is already moving, or to adapt it to accord with modern views and practices; it is quite another to seek to recast the law in a radically innovative or adventurous way” . In my opinion, the 2015 Act is very difficult for an ordinary worker to figure out because of the interconnection of statutory instruments and so interpretation would need engaging a very good lawyer. The process may have

Throughout the progression of time labor has shifted from once being manual trade work to becoming computerized office work. Hence, several acts came to light to protect employees from unfair treatment at work. One of the most vital relationships in any work environment is the employment relationship. Budd and Bhave (2008) explain, “the employment relationship is the connection between employees and employers through which individuals sell their labor” (p.2). There are various types of work contracts that a number of businesses use when hiring their employees. For example, the legal contract which states the legal responsibilities and rights for both the employer and employee (Nankervis, Baird, Coffey, Shields 2001, p.12) then there is the

The notion of employers not having to defend against an unjust dismissal has come under assault in public debate. The court system in New Zealand (NZ) yet fully upholds the right of employees to seek justice against an unjustified dismissal by an employer. However, this essay acclaims that ‘all employers in NZ should have the right to fire without having to defend against an unjust dismissal’, as the benefits of employment at will outweighs the costs. This counter argument is support by empirical research on the exemptions under the proposed doctrine, the mutual benefit it brings employees and employers, the interpretations of the law by the courts, and the evident lack of support for the current system implemented within New Zealand. Despite the emotional appeal of employees allegedly abusing employees, there are compelling reasons to settle employment at will within NZ. For most of NZs laws, there is less freedom of an employer to dismiss an employee on grounds they seem are fair. The law can be very ambiguous, because ultimately the decision is not based on the face value of the law, but rather the interpretation and implication by the courts.

The National Employment Lawyers Association was so concerned about the abuse many workers were experiencing in a work environment filled with discrimination, harassment, and “capricious” employment decisions (About the Institute - History, 2011, para.1) that they decided to become an advocate “for employees rights by advancing equality and justice in the

In providing further context it is useful to consider the origins of employee protection. Originally in the UK, it was common law based and terminated upon cessation of the business, regardless of any subsequent continuation, Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, [1968] 2 QB 497 (MacKenna, 1968). The right to choose an employer was further explored in Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd [1940] 2 QB 497 with the conclusion that the right to choose should be restated, which individually may have been advantageous but could also jeopardise employees’ jobs

The industries in Australia have a number of organisations operating in them. These organisations have a large number of human resources which are involved in the various business functions of the organisations. The relationship between these human resources with each other and the management of the organisations is very important for the success of the business. This requires the establishment of a number of laws, legislations and regulations which manage the industrial relations in the various organisations operating in Australia. These laws and regulations are established in the country by the government and various other regulatory bodies in both public and private sectors. This report is a comparative analysis of such two legislations established in Australia which had a lot of impacts on the industrial relations in the country. The Fair Work Act passed in the year of 2009 and the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act passed in the year of 2005 are the legislations under consideration. The report compares a number of elements of both the legislations and determines the comparative effect of both the legislations on the

A company overall performance is determined by the several aspects. One of these aspects is the labour output. Labour is defined as the aggregate total human physical and mental output used in production of good and services. To ensure smooth production activities, a company must maintain a healthy working relationship between itself and the employees. It’s important to note that workers use different ways to communicate their grievances towards their employers, they parade protests, strikes and engage their trade unions to demand for better working conditions and increase of salaries. This has often resulted to crisis in the labour industry and called for regulatory measures to be taken to control these disputes and act on labour relation cases. Industrial