We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 16

Workplace investigations: what do you need to know?

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • June 25 2009

Recent decisions by the various industrial commissions and the courts indicate that employers will need to meet a higher standard when relying on findings from workplace investigations which result in termination of employment or damage to the employee

Discrimination on the grounds of ‘political activity’ in the Victorian public sector

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 27 2012

On 16 December 2011, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) made its decision in Hakki Suleyman v The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the President of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of the State of Victoria 2011 VCAT 2305

New accident compensation laws for Victoria: what will this mean from an employment and OHS perspective?

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 18 2010

The Victorian Parliament has passed a Bill to enact changes to the Victorian Accident Compensation Act 1985 (the Act

Enterprise update: full court dismisses JJ Richards appeal

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • May 18 2012

In J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd and Australian Mines and Metals Association Inc. v Fair Work Australian and Transport Workers’ Union of Australia 2012 FCAFC 53 (20 April 2012), the Full Court of the Federal Court (Full Court) dismissed the appeal against the decision of a Full Bench of Fair Work Australia (FWA) that a union (on behalf of employees) can be ‘genuinely trying to reach agreement’ even where an employer refuses to bargain, without the need to obtain a majority support determination

Managing long-term employment issues

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 27 2012

In Eriksson v The Commonwealth 2001 FMCA 964, the court considered whether the termination of an employee’s employment constituted adverse action

First General Protections case decided lessons for employers

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • April 16 2010

The Federal Court has provided some comfort to concerned employers regarding the scope of the new adverse action provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act

Fair Work Australia confirms legitimacy of set-off clauses

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • March 22 2010

In a decision with important implications for employers, the Full Bench of Fair Work Australia (FWA) recently confirmed that the use of set-off clauses in contracts of employment is not inconsistent with modern awards

Full bench confirms that a union can obtain a protected action ballot where the employer refuses to bargain

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • February 2 2011

In JJ Richards & Sons v TWU 2010 FWAFB 9963 (23 December 2010), a majority of a Full Bench of Fair Work Australia (FWA) confirmed that a union (on behalf of employees) can be 'genuinely trying to reach agreement' even where an employer refuses to bargain, without the need to obtain a majority support determination

Is a café scuffle in the course of employment?

  • Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • October 12 2012

The decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) in Ralser and Comcare 2012 AATA 510 (3 August 2012) arose from an incident between two work colleagues employed by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO

Casual employees and the minimum employment period

  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 24 2010

The Full Bench of Fair Work Australia has held that a 3-month absence from the workplace did not prevent a casual employee from making an unfair dismissal claim, because he had already served the minimum employment period required under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act