Skip to main content

Ribbon

  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Glossary
  • News & media
Fair Work Commission logo

Fair Work Commission

Australia's national workplace relations tribunal
Search is closed
Menu is closed

Search

Main menu

  • Awards & agreements
    • Minimum wages & conditions
    • Awards
    • Agreements
    • Legislation & regulations for awards & agreements
  • Cases, decisions & orders
    • Major cases
    • Summaries of significant decisions
    • Decisions by keywords
    • FWC Bulletin
    • Archived decisions & orders
    • Transcripts
    • Court reviews
    • Historical cases
  • Registered organisations
    • Fact sheets, templates & webinars
    • Find registered organisations
    • Find State-recognised associations
    • Registration
    • Running a registered organisation
    • Entry permits
    • Industrial action
    • Gazette notices
    • Lodgment
  • Resources
    • Online lodgment
    • Forms
    • Where to get legal help
    • Research
    • Workplace Relations Education Series
    • Benchbooks
    • Fact sheets, guides & videos
    • Practice notes
    • Resources in other languages
    • Case studies
    • Quarterly practitioner updates
    • Related sites
  • Termination of employment
    • Unfair dismissal
    • General protections dismissal
    • Unlawful termination
    • How the Commission works
  • Disputes at work
    • Fairness in the workplace
    • Resolving issues at the Commission
    • Cooperative Workplaces program
    • JobKeeper disputes
    • General protections (unlawful actions)
    • Anti-bullying
    • Industrial action
    • Awards & enterprise agreements disputes
    • Disputes about entry
    • How the Commission works
  • Home
  • Unfair dismissals benchbook
  • What makes a dismissal unfair?
  • Valid reason relating to capacity or conduct
Back to top

Unfair dismissals benchbook

An overview of legal procedure & case law

Conduct

Print this page

 

Table of contents

On this page

  • Introduction
  • Serious misconduct
  • Out of hours conduct
  • Fighting or assault
  • Effect on the safety and welfare of other employees
  • Breach of company policy
  • Loss of trust and confidence
  • Case examples
  • References

 

Introduction

To determine a valid reason relating to conduct, the Commission must determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the conduct allegedly engaged in by the employee actually occurred.[1]

The Fair Work Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would do if it was in the position of the employer.[2] The question the Commission must address is whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal.[3]

The test is not whether the employer believed on reasonable grounds, after sufficient inquiry, that the employee was guilty of the conduct.[4] The Commission must make a finding as to whether the conduct occurred based on the evidence before it.[5]

Inconsistent treatment of previous similar conduct by other employees in the workplace is an issue that can be relevant.[6]

An employee's dishonesty may constitute misconduct and a valid reason for dismissal.[7] However, dishonesty does not automatically make the dismissal of an employee one that is not unfair.[8]

A single foolish, dishonest act may not always, in the circumstances of a particular case, justify summary dismissal.[9]

The failure of the employee to follow the employer's lawful and reasonable directions can constitute a valid reason for dismissal.[10]

Serious misconduct

Fair Work Regulation 1.07 defines serious misconduct.[11] Serious misconduct is conduct that is wilful or deliberate and that is inconsistent with the continuation of the employment contract.[12] It is also conduct that causes serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of a person or to the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer's business.[13]

Serious misconduct includes theft, fraud, assault, intoxication at work and the refusal to carry out lawful and reasonable instructions consistent with the employment contract.[14]

Where serious misconduct is alleged the test for a valid reason for dismissal does not change. The test remains whether the reason was 'sound, defensible or well founded'.[15] A valid reason for dismissal does not require conduct amounting to a repudiation of the contract of employment.[16]

Where an employee has been dismissed without notice (summary dismissal) for serious misconduct the Commission may find that, although there was a valid reason for the dismissal, the dismissal was harsh because summary dismissal was a disproportionate response.[17]

Where the conduct involves serious misconduct, the principle established in Briginshaw v Briginshaw[18] may be relevant:

The standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities but 'the nature of the issue necessarily affects the process by which reasonable satisfaction is attained'[19] and such satisfaction 'should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences' or 'by slender and exiguous proofs or circumstances pointing with a wavering finger to an affirmative conclusion.'[20]

The Briginshaw principle does not raise the standard of proof beyond the balance of probabilities.[21] The strength of the evidence needed to establish a fact on the balance of probabilities 'may vary according to the nature of what it is sought to prove'.[22] More serious allegations may require stronger evidence.

Out of hours conduct

'It is only in exceptional circumstances that an employer has a right to extend any supervision over the private activities of employees.'[23]

The out of hours conduct must have a relevant connection to the employment relationship.[24]

Rose v Telstra[25] looked at relevant decisions on out-of-hours conduct and provides the following summary:

  • 'The conduct must be such that, viewed objectively, it is likely to cause serious damage to the relationship between the employee and employer; or
  • The conduct damages the employer's interests; or
  • The conduct is incompatible with the employee's duty as an employee.'[26]

In cases involving out of hours conduct, it is not sufficient for the employer to simply assert that the conduct will in some way affect the employer’s reputation or compromise the employee’s capacity to perform his or her duties, there needs to be evidentiary material upon which a firm finding may be made.[27]

Conduct outside of work involving criminal offences does not, alone, warrant dismissal.[28] There still must be a relevant connection between the criminal activity and the employee's employment.[29]

However if the employee is unable to attend work for a significant period because they are convicted of a serious offence and imprisoned, then the contract of employment may be brought to an end by the operation of law due to frustration.[30]

Fighting or assault

Generally, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, a dismissal for fighting will not be viewed as harsh, unjust or unreasonable.[31]

Extenuating circumstances include:

  • the circumstances in which the fight occurred, such as whether the dismissed employee was provoked or acting in self-defence
  • length of service, including the work record of the dismissed employee, and
  • whether or not the employee was in a supervisory position.[32]

The authorities are clear that the Commission must take into account all of the circumstances surrounding the incident and not merely establish who the aggressor was.[33]

Effect on the safety and welfare of other employees

Where the employee's conduct or capacity affects the safety and welfare of other employees the Commission may find that this is a valid reason for the dismissal.[34]

Fair Work Regulation 1.07 (which defines serious misconduct) may also be relevant when dealing with Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) breaches that amount to serious misconduct.[35]

The kind of conduct that is relevant need not only be wilful, malicious or intentional conduct, but conduct that can imperil or put other employees in the workplace in jeopardy.[36]

The Commission may take into account the following issues when determining whether there has been a breach of safety:

  • the seriousness of the breach/incident
  • company policies setting out safety procedures and consequences for breaches
  • relevant OHS training by the employer
  • whether the incident/breach was isolated or recurring in nature, and
  • whether or not the employee concerned was a supervisor and expected to set an example.[37]

Breach of company policy

A substantial and wilful breach of a policy will often, if not usually, constitute a valid reason for dismissal.[38]

However a finding that an employee has failed to comply with policies and procedures does not mean that a dismissal is not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. In each case all of the circumstances must be taken into account.[39]

If widespread breaches of policy occur without an employer response then this weighs against a decision that the dismissal was justified and not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.[40]

Loss of trust and confidence

It is not sufficient to find that there is a valid reason for an employee’s dismissal simply because someone has lost trust and confidence in an employee’s ability to perform their role. There needs to be sufficient evidence and reasoning to support this loss of trust and confidence.[41]

Case examples

Valid reason due to conduct

Poor attitude and behaviour

Kolodka v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd t/a Virgin Australia [2012] FWA 7828 (Smith DP, 12 September 2012).

The employer dismissed the employee for poor behaviour and having a poor attitude towards his team members, customers and supervisors.

It was found that there was a valid reason for the employee's termination due to the employee's conduct.

Various conduct issues – lateness, not wearing personal protective equipment

Aperio Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (T/a Aperio Finewrap) v Sulemanovski [2011] FWAFB 1436 (Watson SDP, McCarthy SDP, Deegan C, 4 March 2011), [(2011) 203 IR 18].

The employee had a long history of performance and conduct related issues, including unauthorised absences, non-compliance with OHS and other company policies and late attendance. The employer gave multiple warnings and conducted several counselling sessions.

It was found that the employee's misconduct was a valid reason for the dismissal.

Recklessness and carelessness in causing forklift accident

IGA Distribution (Vic) Pty Ltd v Nguyen [2011] FWAFB 4070 (Boulton J, O'Callaghan SDP, Ryan C, 9 September 2011), [(2011) 212 IR 141].

The employee was terminated for causing a forklift to collide with another forklift. It was found that, due to the seriousness of the conduct and the possible health and safety risks caused by the incident, there was a valid reason for the dismissal.

Note: However it was found that, notwithstanding the finding of a valid reason for dismissal, the termination was harsh and unjust because the employer was wrong in accusing the employee of deliberately causing the accident.

Social media – Facebook

O'Keefe v Williams Muir's Pty Ltd T/A Troy Williams The Good Guys [2011] FWA 5311 (Swan DP, 11 August 2011).

The employee made negative and threatening comments about a colleague on Facebook. The Commission held that threatening another work employee is a serious issue and one which would not be tolerated in any workplace. The manner in which the threat was made and the words used provided sufficient reason for the respondent’s dismissal of the applicant on the grounds of serious misconduct.

Drinking alcohol while on lunch break

Selak v Woolworths Limited [2008] AIRCFB 81 (Watson VP, Cartwright SDP, Foggo C, 8 February 2008), [(2008) 171 IR 267].

The employee, a store manager, was terminated for consuming two beers on his lunch break. The employer had an explicit policy that no alcohol was to be consumed during work hours. It was found that this was a valid reason for his dismissal.

Drinking alcohol while on lunch break

Agnew v Nationwide News, PR927597 (AIRC, Rafaelli C, 11 February 2003).

Leave to appeal refused in PR936856 (AIRCFB, Harrison SDP, Ives DP, Bacon C, 27 August 2003), [(2003) 126 IR 461].

The employees were terminated after it was discovered they were drinking alcohol during their lunch break. It was found that a breach of the policy was a valid reason for the dismissal.

However, it was held dismissal was harsh in all of the circumstances when taking into account recent policy change, inconsistent enforcement of the policy and the employees' period of service.

Dishonesty in disciplinary interview

Streeter v Telstra Corporation Limited [2008] AIRCFB 15 (Acton SDP, Cartwright SDP, Larkin C, 24 January 2008), [(2008) 170 IR 1].

The employee engaged in sexual intercourse in a hotel room in front of colleagues. Her colleagues complained about her behaviour to the employer. After a number of interviews, the employee conceded that such activity did take place. The Full Bench found on appeal, in a majority decision, that the employee's dishonesty throughout the investigation amounted to a valid reason for her dismissal.

The Full Bench found it was reasonable for Telstra to conduct the investigation given it appeared the employee’s activities had caused difficulties at her work and were likely to cause difficulties at her work in the future. In the circumstances, the Full Bench also held that the questions Telstra asked the employee were reasonable. The Full Bench found the employee needed to be honest with Telstra during the investigation, notwithstanding the inherently personal nature of her activities, so that Telstra could determine and take appropriate action to deal with the difficulties. The employee’s dishonesty during the investigation meant Telstra could not be confident the employee would be honest with it in the future. The relationship of trust and confidence between Telstra and the employee was, thereby, destroyed.

Transmission of pornographic emails

Flanagan v Thales Australia Ltd t/a Thales Australia [2012] FWA 6291 (Bull C, 7 September 2012).

The employees accessed pornographic material via work email accounts in breach of a company policy. It was held that this was a valid reason for dismissal.

Note: Due to the lack of procedural fairness in the termination process, it was ultimately found that the dismissals were harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Dishonesty – co-worker stealing

Woodman v The Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd, PR906309 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Watson SDP, Grainger C, 11 July 2001), [(2001) 107 IR 172].

The employee was dismissed for allowing a colleague to take an item from the Candy Bar without paying for it and for lying to management when questioned about the incident. It was found that, notwithstanding the size of the theft, covering it up amounted to serious misconduct and a valid reason for the dismissal.

Note: It was ultimately found that the termination was harsh due to deficiencies in the dismissal process.

Breach of policy – dress code

Woolworths Limited (t/as Safeway) v Brown, PR963023 (AIRCFB, Lawler VP, Lloyd SDP, Bacon C, 26 September 2005), [(2005) 145 IR 285].

The employee was dismissed from his employment as a butcher for refusing to remove his eyebrow ring while at work.

It was found that the employee refused to comply with a lawful direction of his employer and this was a valid reason for dismissal.

Breach of policy – gambling

Atfield v Jupiters Limited trading as Conrad Jupiters Gold Coast, PR925334 (AIRC, Hodder C, 10 December 2002), [(2002) 123 IR 273].

Leave to appeal was refused in PR928970 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Lawler VP, Foggo C, 19 March 2003), [(2003) 124 IR 217].

The employee, a manager working for a casino, was dismissed for serious misconduct for placing a bet at a TAB within the casino complex. It was found there was a valid reason for the dismissal.

Note: Despite a finding that there was a valid reason for the dismissal, in all of the circumstances the dismissal was found to be harsh.

Serious safety breach – forklift

Parmalat Food Products Pty Ltd v Wililo [2011] FWAFB 1166 (Watson VP, Sams DP, Asbury C, 2 March 2011), [(2011) 207 IR 243].

The employee was dismissed for breaching health and safety policy when he placed his arms, head and torso under an unstable load on a forklift. It was held that this was a valid reason for dismissal.

Serious safety breach – rail

Gottwald v Downer EDI Rail Pty Ltd [2007] AIRC 969 (Richards SDP, 30 November 2007).

The employee was dismissed for a health and safety breach after a rail car that he had been working on rolled into a workshop. It was found that the employee's conduct was of the kind that could imperil or put other employees in the workplace in jeopardy and was a valid reason for dismissal.

Note: The notice of termination and the reasons given in the disciplinary meetings for the dismissal were unclear and ineffective and therefore, ultimately the termination was harsh.

Improper use of work information

Applicant v Australian Federal Police [2012] FWA 1352 (Harrison SDP, 19 April 2012).

Permission to appeal was refused in [2012] FWAFB 6949 (Watson VP, Sams DP, Deegan C, 24 August 2012).

The employee was dismissed for breaching the employer's code of conduct by requesting a colleague investigate her ex-husband's financial affairs.

It was found that this breach constituted a valid reason for dismissal.

Fighting/assault

DP World Sydney Ltd v Lambley (2012) 222 IR 277.

Appeal to the Federal Court dismissed in [2013] FCA 4 (10 January 2013).

The employee was dismissed for serious misconduct for assaulting another employee. The Commission held fighting in the workplace usually amounts to a valid reason for dismissal, as an employer has every right to establish policies against fighting and to ensure compliance with those policies by dismissing employees who are found to have engaged in fighting unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Breach of policy – offensive email

Anderson v Thiess Pty Ltd [2015] FWCFB 478 (Ross J, Hatcher VP, Simpson C, 30 January 2015).

The employee was dismissed after sending an offensive email in breach of the employer's workplace policies. It was held that this amounted to a valid reason for dismissal, in particular as the email was one which vilified persons of the Muslim faith and had caused offence.

Note: However it was found that, notwithstanding the finding of a valid reason for dismissal, the termination was harsh and unreasonable because of its consequences for the employee's personal and economic situation and that it was not reasonably open to the employer to conclude that the misconduct was wilful.

Failure to follow lawful and reasonable directions

Grant v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 3027 (Richards SDP, Asbury DP, Booth C, 18 June 2014).

Decision at first instance [2014] FWC 1712 (Spencer C, 14 March 2014).

The employee was on extended sick leave whilst receiving treatment for a shoulder injury sustained in the course of his duties. After a lengthy absence from the workplace following surgery, the employer required the employee to attend its nominated medical specialist for a functional assessment test before being assigned duties. The employee did not attend the medical appointment, nor the rescheduled medical appointment.

The employee was dismissed for failing to follow lawful and reasonable directions to attend a medical appointment, as well as his refusal to participate in the disciplinary investigation. At first instance the Commission found this a valid reason for dismissal and the application was dismissed. This decision was affirmed on appeal.

Employee conflict

Lumley v Bremick Pty Ltd Australia t/a Bremick Fasteners [2014] FWCFB 8278 (Hatcher VP, Gostencnik DP, Ryan C, 5 December 2014).

An employee was dismissed after an ongoing workplace conflict with a colleague could not be resolved. Both employees received written warnings and mediation was conducted by the manager. After further altercation, and a final warning, the employee challenged the employer to sack her.

At first instance the Commission found that the dismissal was for a valid reason, soundly based on the conduct of the employee. This was confirmed on appeal, where the Full Bench found that the conflict had put the employer in an 'impossible position, irrespective of who was at fault'. Permission to appeal was refused.

NOT a valid reason due to conduct

Failing to comply with restricted duties

Perry v Coffs Ex-Services memorial and Sporting Club Ltd [2009] AIRC 777 (Thatcher C, 18 August 2009).

The employee was injured at work and consequently placed on a return to work program involving restricted duties. The employee was found to be carrying two trays of empty wine glasses above the weight restriction specified in her return to work program.

It was found there was no valid reason for the employee's dismissal.

Swearing/bad language

Symes v Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 4789 (Cargill C, 8 June 2012).

Appeal to Full Bench dismissed in [2012] FWAFB 7877 (Kaufman SDP, Smith DP, Lee C, 12 September 2012).

The employee was dismissed for misconduct after he swore at a manager and then punched a noticeboard.

It was found that although swearing was inappropriate and unwarranted in a workplace, it was tolerated by the employer. It was held that the employee's behaviour did not provide a valid reason for dismissal.

Failing to report other employee's dishonesty

Crockett v Vondoo Hair t/a Vondoo Hair [2012] FWA 8300 (Sams DP, 9 October 2012).

The employer accused the employee of witnessing another employee stealing clients for her own personal business and of supplying client details to that other employee.

It was found the employee was denied procedural fairness because the employer failed to properly investigate the matter and give the employee an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Commission found that there was no valid reason for the dismissal.

Fighting/assault

Dewson v Boom Logistics Ltd [2012] FWA 9027 (Cambridge C, 24 October 2012).

The employee was dismissed for serious misconduct involving physical assault upon another employee.

It was noted that the employer in this case did not satisfy 'even a basic level of proof' that the employee committed the assaults. It was held that there was no valid reason for the dismissal.

Shortcomings in reporting an injured patient

Lengkong v Bupa Care Services Pty Ltd t/a Bupa Morphettville [2012] FWA 3737 (O'Callaghan SDP, 1 May 2012).

The employee was dismissed for serious misconduct after a complaint was made about an injury suffered by an elderly resident under the employee's care.

It was found that, even though the employee may not have properly investigated or reported the incident, this was an oversight and did not negatively affect the resident's welfare or compromise the employer's position. It was held that there was no valid reason for the termination.

Allegations of misappropriation and fraud

McKerrow v Sarina Leagues Club incorporated T/A Sarina Leagues Club [2012] FWA 1251 (Asbury C, 21 February 2012).

The employee was dismissed for misappropriation of club funds and fraud. The employer alleged that she made payments out of the employer's funds to a different organisation and attempted to hide the transaction when the other organisation returned the money.

It was found that the employee was guilty of an error of judgment in paying the amount to the other organisation, however it was done for a purpose consistent with the objects of the employer and the employee held a reasonable belief that the amount would be repaid. Therefore, there found to be no valid reason for dismissal.

Alleged failure to follow employer's lawful and reasonable direction

Schreier v Austal Ships Pty Ltd, Print N9636 (AIRC, O'Connor C, 19 March 1997).

Leave to appeal refused in Print P3975 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Drake DP, Dight C, 13 August 1997).

The employee was dismissed for performance issues and failing to follow a lawful instruction. The employer had directed the employee to attend 15 hours of training outside of work hours and the employee refused to do so.

It was found that this did not amount to a valid reason for dismissal.

Criminal matters – theft of alcohol

Black and Santoro v Ansett Australia Limited, Print S3905 (AIRC, Drake SDP, 20 March 2000).

The employees were dismissed for serious misconduct arising from the theft of beverages.

It was considered that, where the alleged commission of a crime is relied upon as a reason for dismissal, the standard of proof requires more than 'mere conjecture, guesswork or surmise'. On the evidence that existed at the time of the dismissal, it found that there was no valid reason for the terminations.

Employer used illegally obtained evidence to support allegation of theft

Walker v Mittagong Sands Pty Limited T/A Cowra Quartz [2010] FWA 9440 (Thatcher C, 8 December 2010).

The employee was accused of stealing oil from the employer. After becoming suspicious that the theft had occurred, the employer searched for and took samples of oil from the employee's vehicle without the employee being present. It was held that this evidence could not be used to prove the misconduct and therefore there was no valid reason for the dismissal.

The Commission found that the utility and container were clearly the personal property of the employee. By reaching over to touch the container the employer technically committed an act of trespass. By opening the bottle and removing some oil he committed an act of larceny (stealing). Simply put, he did not have the authority to search the employee's property and take the oil, and his actions were unlawful. The evidence obtained in consequence of that unlawful act includes the custody of the purported sample and the analysis thereof by the analytical laboratory.

Refusal to follow company policy

Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd [2019] FWCFB 2946 (Sams DP, Gostencnik DP, McKinnon C, 1 May 2019).

The applicant was employed as a casual general hand. A new company policy introduced fingerprint scanners to record work site attendance. The employees were advised to register their finger prints to record site attendance.

The applicant submitted that biometric data is sensitive personal information under the Privacy Act 1998 (Cth) and the employer was not entitled to require that information. The employer addressed the applicant’s concern by providing a document from the supplier explaining the nature of the data collected. The employer issued the applicant with a verbal warning and written warnings due to his non-compliance with the new company policy. The applicant was subsequently dismissed because of his refusal to use the biometric fingerprint scanner.

The Full Bench found that the applicant was unfairly dismissed and held that the direction to comply with company policy was unlawful (because it was in breach of the Privacy Act), and that the applicant was entitled to refuse to follow the direction.

Loss of trust and confidence

Mammarella v Department of Parliamentary Services [2019] FWC 6340 (Harper-Greenwell C, 11 September 2019).

The applicant was employed by the Victorian Department of Parliamentary Services as an Electoral Officer. The applicant had management and control of the assets within the electoral office, and his role was to represent the Member of the Victorian Legislative Council for Western Metropolitan Melbourne, Mr Eideh, in the wider community.

In September 2017 the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) commenced an investigation into allegations of fraudulent work practices in the electorate office where the applicant worked. An audit of the electorate office was conducted by the Department of Parliamentary Services in November 2018. In December 2018 the applicant was charged with criminal offences in relation to the IBAC investigation. Following the audit the applicant was advised that there was a loss of trust and confidence in his ability to perform his role and he was subsequently dismissed.

Giving consideration to Byrne and Crozier, the Commission accepted that the applicant was a person of interest in the IBAC investigation, involving allegations of fraudulent and corrupt behaviour. However, whilst the Commission accepted that Mr Eideh may have lost trust and confidence in the applicant, it is not sufficient to find that there is a valid reason for dismissal simply because someone has lost trust and confidence in an employee’s ability to perform their role. The Commission held that there needs to be sufficient evidence and reasoning to support this loss of trust and confidence. The Commission noted that as at the time of the submission there had been no findings made in relation to the criminal charges against the applicant. The Commission found that there was no valid reason for the applicant’s dismissal without being able to establish adequate reasons and found that the applicant’s dismissal was unjust and unfair.

References

[1] Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836 (23 December 1999) at paras 6–7, [(1999) 94 FCR 561]. See also Rail Corporation New South Wales v Vrettos [2008] AIRCFB 747 (Kaufman SDP, McCarthy DP, Blair C, 8 October 2008) at para. 27, [(2008) 176 IR 129]; Container Terminals Australia Limited v Toby, Print S8434 (AIRCFB, Boulton J, Marsh SDP, Jones C, 24 July 2000) at para. 13.

[2] Walton v Mermaid Dry Cleaners Pty Limited [1996] IRCA 267 (12 June 1996), [(1996) 142 ALR 681 at p. 685].

[3] ibid.

[4] King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd, Print S4213 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Williams SDP, Hingley C, 17 March 2000) at para. 24.

[5] ibid.

[6] APS Group (Placements) Pty Ltd v O'Loughlin [2011] FWAFB 5230 (Lawler VP, O'Callaghan SDP, Roberts C, 8 August 2011) at paras 59–61, [(2011) 209 IR 351]. See also Sexton v Pacific National (ACT) Pty Ltd, PR931440 (AIRC, Lawler VP, 14 May 2003) at para. 32; Electricity Commission of New South Wales t/a Pacific Power v Nieass (1995) 81 IR 46, 66.

[7] APS Group (Placements) Pty Ltd v O'Loughlin [2011] FWAFB 5230 (Lawler VP, O'Callaghan SDP, Roberts C, 8 August 2011) at para. 56, [(2011) 209 IR 351].

[8] ibid.

[9] McDonald v Parnell Laboratories (Aust) [2007] FCA 1903 (7 December 2007) at para. 61, [(2007) 168 IR 375].

[10] Lambeth v University of Western Sydney [2009] AIRC 47 (Hamberger SDP, 16 January 2009) at para. 70. See also Grant v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 3027 (Richards SDP, Asbury DP, Booth C, 18 June 2014).

[11] Fair Work Regulations.

[12] reg 1.07(2)(a).

[13] reg 1.07(2)(b).

[14] reg 1.07(3).

[15] Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 333 (7 July 1995), [(1995) 62 IR 371 at p. 373]; cited in Annetta v Ansett Australia Ltd, Print S6824 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Williams SDP, Cribb C, 7 June 2000) at para. 10, [(2000) 98 IR 233].

[16] Annetta v Ansett Australia Ltd, Print S6824 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Williams SDP, Cribb C, 7 June 2000) at para. 10, [(2000) 98 IR 233].

[17] Potter v WorkCover Corporation, PR948009 (Ross VP, Williams SDP, Foggo C, 15 June 2004) at para. 55, [(2004) 133 IR 458]. See also Annetta v Ansett Australia Ltd, Print S6824 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Williams SDP, Cribb C, 7 June 2000) at para. 10, [(2000) 98 IR 233].

[18] [1938] HCA 34 (30 June 1938), [(1938) 60 CLR 336]; cited in Barber v Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Department of Parliamentary Services [2011] FWA 4092 (Thatcher C, 6 July 2011) at para. 33, [(2011) 212 IR 1].

[19] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34 (30 June 1938), [(1938) 60 CLR 336].

[20] ibid., [(1938) 60 CLR 336] at pp. 362‒3].

[21] Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66 (16 December 1992), [(1992) 67 ALJR 170]; cited in Guneyi v Melbourne Health T/A Royal Melbourne Hospital [2012] FWA 10270 (Hamilton DP, 18 December 2012) at para. 14. See also Budd v Dampier Salt Limited [2007] AIRCFB 797 (Giudice J, Lacy SDP, Cargill C, 5 October 2007) at para. 15, [(2007) 166 IR 407].

[22] ibid.

[23] Appellant v Respondent, Print R1221 (AIRCFB, MacBean SDP, Duncan SDP, Deegan C, 1 February 1999), [(1999) 89 IR 407 at p. 416].

[24] Rose v Telstra Corporation Limited, Print Q9292 (AIRC, Ross VP, 4 December 1998); see also Kedwell v Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Limited T/A Mount Thorley Operations/Warkworth Mining [2016] FWC 6018 (Saunders C, 9 September 2016) at para. 104.

[25] Print Q9292 (AIRC, Ross VP, 4 December 1998).

[26] Rose v Telstra Corporation Limited, Print Q9292 (AIRC, Ross VP, 4 December 1998); cited with approval in Farquharson v Qantas Airways Limited, PR971685 (AIRCFB, Lawler VP, O'Callaghan SDP, Raffaelli C, 10 August 2006) at para. 25, [(2006) 155 IR 22].

[27] Wakim v Bluestar Global Logistics [2016] FWC 6992 (Hatcher VP, 7 October 2016) at para. 32.

[28] HEF of Australia v Western Hospital, (1991) 33 AILR 249; cited in Rose v Telstra Corporation Limited, Print Q9292 (AIRC, Ross VP, 4 December 1998).

[29] ibid. See also Cooper v Australian Tax Office [2014] FWC 7551 (Lawrence DP, 6 November 2014).

[30] F.C. Shepherd & Co Ltd v Jerrom [1987] ICR 802; cited in Rose v Telstra Corporation Limited, Print Q9292 (AIRC, Ross VP, 4 December 1998).

[31] The AWU-FIME Amalgamated Union v Queensland Alumina Limited [1995] IRCA 346 (17 July 1995), [(1995) 62 IR 385]; cited in Tenix Defence Systems Pty Ltd v Fearnley, Print S6238 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Polites SDP, Smith C, 22 May 2000) at para. 22.

[32] ibid.

[33] Culpeper v Intercontinental Ship Management Pty Ltd, PR944547 (AIRCFB, Marsh SDP, Blain DP, Hoffman C, 23 March 2004) at para. 49, [(2004) 134 IR 243].

[34] Fair Work Act s.387(a).

[35] Fair Work Regulations reg 1.07.

[36] Gottwald v Downer EDI Rail Pty Ltd [2007] AIRC 969 (Richards SDP, 30 November 2007) at para. 102. See also Hudson v Woolworths Ltd [2007] AIRC 912 (Thatcher C, 24 October 2007).

[37] Butson v BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 640 (McCarthy DP, 1 February 2010).

[38] Browne v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 3670 (Hatcher VP, 10 June 2014) at para. 62; citing B, C and D v Australian Postal Corporation T/A Australia Post [2013] FWCFB 6191 (Lawler VP, Hamberger SDP, Cribb C, 28 August 2013) at para. 36, [(2013) 238 IR 1].

[39] B, C and D v Australian Postal Corporation T/A Australia Post [2013] FWCFB 6191 (Lawler VP, Hamberger SDP, Cribb C, 28 August 2013) at para. 48, [(2013) 238 IR 1]]; see also Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd [2019] FWCFB 2946 (Sams DP, Gostencnik DP, McKinnon C, 1 May 2019).

[40] ibid., at para. 67.

[41] Mammarella v Department of Parliamentary Services [2019] FWC 6340 (Harper-Greenwell C, 11 September 2019) at para. 61.

Updated time

Last updated

15 January 2020

 

 

Bookmark/Search this post

Facebook logo Google+ logo Twitter logo

 

Page feedback

Did you find what you were looking for?

Please note: If you would like a response to your question, please contact us or lodge a complaint. This feedback is only about content on this page and will be used to improve website usability. The comments are not monitored for personal information or workplace complaints. 

Mini sites

  • Annual Report 2013–14
    • Reader's guide
    • 1. Overview
      • President's introduction
      • General Manager's overview
      • Performance summary
      • Major achievements 2013–14
    • 2. About the Commission
      • Who we are and what we do
      • Our structure
      • Outcome and program structure
      • Our clients and stakeholders
        • In focus—Small Business Outreach
      • Our future direction
        • In focus–New website
        • In focus–Virtual tour
        • In focus–Mock hearings
      • Our history
    • 3. Performance reporting
      • Overview
      • Legislative amendments
      • Workload
      • Timeliness benchmarks
      • Resolving disputes
      • Determining unfair dismissal applications
      • Setting the minimum wage
        • In focus–Pay Equity Unit
      • Orders relating to industrial action
        • Case study–Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority
        • Case study–Sydney Water
      • Processes relating to modern awards
        • In focus–4 yearly review of awards
      • Approving agreements
        • Case study–Catholic Education Victoria
        • Case study–Orora Fibre Packaging
      • Regulating registered organisations
      • Determining anti-bullying applications
        • In focus–Setting up the anti-bullying jurisdiction
        • Case study–Anti-bullying
      • Key performance indicators
    • 4. Management and accountability
      • Corporate governance
      • Planning and development
      • Ethical standards
      • Accountability
      • Our workforce
      • Employee pay and entitlements
      • Service Charter, complaints and Code of Conduct
      • Financial management
    • 5. Appendices
      • A | Member activities
      • B | List of Members
      • C | Panel assignments
      • D | Methodology for Chart 2–Matters dealt with by the Commission and its predecessors 1998–99 to 2013–14
      • E | Promoting fairness and improving access
      • F | Efficiency and innovation
      • G | Increasing accountability
      • H | Productivity and engaging with industry
      • I | Documents relating to the work of the Commission
      • J | Fair Work Commission addresses
      • K | Lodgment and case load statistics
      • L | Methodology for Chart 6–Number of Commission sittings, various
      • M | Subscription services
      • N | Information on specific statutory requirements
      • O | Fraud Control Certificate
      • P | Fair Work Commission Service Charter
      • Q | Financial statements
        • Independent Audit Report
        • Statement by the General Manager and Chief Financial Officer
        • Statement of Comprehensive Income
        • Statement of Financial Position
        • Statement of Changes in Equity
        • Cash Flow Statement
        • Schedule of Commitments
        • Schedule of Administered Items
        • Notes to the financial statements
          • Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
          • Note 2: Events after the Reporting Period
          • Note 3: Expenses
          • Note 4: Income
          • Note 5: Fair Value Measurements
          • Note 6: Financial Assets
          • Note 7: Non-financial Assets
          • Note 8: Payables
          • Note 9: Provisions
          • Note 10: Cash Flow Reconciliation
          • Note 11: Contingent Liabilities and Assets
          • Note 12: Senior Executive Remuneration
          • Note 13: Remuneration of Auditors
          • Note 14: Financial Instruments
          • Note 15: Financial Assets Reconciliation
          • Note 16: Administered Income
          • Note 17: Administered Payables
          • Note 18: Administered Cash Flow Reconciliation
          • Note 19: Administered Contingent Liabilities and Assets
          • Note 20: Appropriations
          • Note 21: Compliance with Statutory Conditions for Payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund
          • Note 22: Compensation and Debt Relief
          • Note 23: Reporting of Outcomes
          • Note 24: Net Cash Appropriation Arrangements
      • R | Agency resource statement
      • S | Expenses and resources for outcome
      • T | Glossary
      • U | Acronyms and abbreviations
      • V | List of requirements
    • Letter of transmittal
    • Inquiries and copyright
    • Videos
    • Downloads
  • Annual Report 2014–15
    • Introduction
    • Preliminary information
      • Contents
      • Letter of transmittal
      • Readers guide
    • Part 1 Overview
      • President's introduction
      • General Manager's overview
      • Performance summary
      • Major achievements
    • Part 2 About the Commission
      • Outcome and programme structure
      • Who we are and what we do
      • Our structure
      • Our history
      • Our clients and stakeholders
      • Our future direction
      • Future directions - Continuing the change program
    • Part 3 Performance reporting
      • Overview
      • Legislative amendments
      • Workload
      • Timeliness benchmarks
      • Resolving disputes
      • Unlawful termination disputes
      • Determining unfair dismissal applications
      • Setting the minimum wage
      • Orders relating to industrial action
      • Processes relating to modern awards
      • Enterprise agreements
      • Determining anti-bullying applications
      • Regulating registered organisations
      • Key performance indicators
    • Part 4 Management and accountability
      • Corporate governance
      • Planning and development
      • Workplace health and safety
      • Business continuity
      • Ethical standards
      • Fair Work Commission values
      • Freedom of information
      • Accountability
      • The Commission's workforce
      • Employee pay and entitlements
      • Service Charter, complaints and code of conduct
      • Financial management
      • Agency resource statement
      • Expenses and resources for outcome
    • Acronyms and abbreviations
    • Part 5 Appendices
      • Appendix A
      • Appendix B
      • Appendix C
      • Appendix D
      • Appendix E
      • Appendix F
      • Appendix G
      • Appendix H
      • Appendix I
      • Appendix J
      • Appendix K
      • Appendix L
      • Appendix M
      • Appendix N
      • Glossary
  • Annual Report 2015–16
    • Preliminary information
      • Letter of transmittal
      • Readers' guide
    • Part 1: Overview
      • President's report
      • General Manager's report
    • Part 2: About the Commission
    • Part 3: Performance
      • Performance summary
      • Annual performance statements 2015–16
      • Operational performance
        • Applications lodged
        • Hearings & conferences
        • Information & assistance
        • Major application types
          • Unfair dismissals
          • General protections & unlawful termination disputes
          • Anti-bullying
          • Enterprise agreements
          • Resolving disputes
          • Industrial action
        • New Approaches
        • Setting the minimum wage
        • Modern awards
        • Regulating registered organisations
        • Appeals
      • Significant decisions
      • Case studies
        • Case study: Enterprise agreements pilot
        • Case study: Patrick & the MUA
        • Case study: Encouraging regulatory compliance
    • Part 4: Management & accountability
      • Corporate governance
      • Financial management
      • Other mandatory information
    • Appendices
      • Appendix A: List of Members
      • Appendix B: Panel assignments
      • Appendix C: Member activities
      • Appendix D: Lodgment & case load statistics
      • Appendix E: Registered organisations data
      • Appendix F: Performance reporting for the RSRT
      • Appendix G: Financial statements
      • Appendix H: Subscription services
      • Appendix I: Service charter
      • Appendix J: List of requirements
      • Appendix K: Expense & resources outcome, agency resource statement & financial performance analysis
    • Glossary
    • Acronyms & abbreviations
    • Contact us
  • Annual Wage Review 2013–14
  • Anti-bullying benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Overview of benchbook
    • What is workplace bullying?
    • Who is covered by workplace bullying laws?
      • Definition of ‘worker’
      • Definition of ‘constitutionally-covered business’
        • What is a person conducting a business or undertaking?
        • What is a Territory or a Commonwealth place?
        • What is a constitutional corporation?
        • What is the Commonwealth?
    • When is a worker bullied at work?
      • What does ‘at work’ mean?
      • Risk of continued bullying
      • Reasonable management action
    • Making an application
    • Responding to an application
    • If the worker has been dismissed
    • Commission processes
      • Procedural issues
      • Representation by lawyers and paid agents
    • Evidence
    • Outcomes
      • Dismissing an application
      • Contravening an order of the Commission
    • Associated applications
      • Costs
      • Appeals
      • Role of the Court
  • Corporate Plan 2018–19
    • 1. Message from the General Manager
    • 2. Purpose
    • 3. Operating environment
    • 4. Culture
    • 5. Capability
    • 6. Performance
  • Corporate Plan 2019–20
    • 1. Message from the General Manager
    • 2. Purpose
    • 3. Operating environment
    • 4. Our focus
    • 5. Culture
    • 6. Capability
    • 7. Performance
  • Corporate Plan 2020-21
    • 1. Message from the General Manager
    • 2. Purpose
    • 3. Operating environment
    • 4. Key activities
    • 5. Capability
    • 6. Risk
    • 7. Performance
  • Enterprise agreements benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Overview of benchbook
    • What is an enterprise agreement?
      • Single-enterprise agreement
      • Multi-enterprise agreement
      • Differences between single and multi-enterprise agreements
      • Greenfields agreement
    • Content of an enterprise agreement
      • Permitted matters
      • Coverage
      • Scope – who will be covered?
      • Terms & conditions of employment
      • Base rate of pay
      • Nominal expiry date
      • Mandatory terms
      • Flexibility term
      • Consultation term
      • Dispute settlement term
      • Optional terms
      • Terms that cannot be included
        • Terms that exclude the NES
        • Unlawful terms
        • Designated outworker terms
    • Agreement making process
      • Representation
      • Employee right to be represented
      • Bargaining representatives
    • Bargaining
      • Good faith bargaining
      • How long does bargaining take?
    • Voting
      • Voting process
      • Who can vote?
      • Timeframe for vote
      • Voting methods
      • When is an agreement made?
      • If parties cannot agree
    • Making an application
      • Common defects & issues
        • National Employment Standards
        • Better off overall test
        • Mandatory terms
        • Other terms
        • Pre-approval requirements
        • Forms & lodgment
      • Who must apply
      • Timeframe to apply
      • Material to accompany application
      • Signing an agreement
      • Employer must notify employees
    • Commission approval process
      • Genuine agreement
        • Minor procedural or technical errors
      • Where a scope order is in operation
      • Particular kinds of employees
      • Better off overall test (BOOT)
        • When an agreement passes
        • Classes of employees
        • Which award applies
        • Advice about coverage
        • Loaded rates of pay
      • Public interest test
      • Undertakings
      • Powers of the Commission
    • Associated applications
      • Majority support determinations
      • Authorisations to commence bargaining
        • Single interest employer authorisations
        • Ministerial declaration
        • Low-paid authorisations
      • Scope orders
      • Bargaining orders
      • Serious breach declarations
      • Disputes
      • Workplace determinations
        • Low-paid
        • Industrial action related
        • Bargaining related
      • Role of the Court
      • Appeals
      • Varying enterprise agreements
        • Varying by agreement
        • Ambiguity or uncertainty
        • Discrimination
      • Terminating enterprise agreements
        • Terminating by agreement
        • After its nominal expiry date
      • Terminating individual agreements
  • General Manager reporting requirements
  • General protections benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Overview of benchbook
      • When is a person covered by the general protections?
    • What are the general protections?
    • How do the general protections work?
      • Rebuttable presumption as to reason or intent
    • Coverage for general protections
      • What is a constitutionally-covered entity?
      • What is a Territory or a Commonwealth place?
      • What is a trade and commerce employer?
      • What is a Territory employer?
      • What is a national system employer?
    • What if I am not covered?
    • What is adverse action?
      • What is dismissal?
      • Injuring employee in their employment
      • Altering the position of the employee
      • Discriminating
      • Threatened action and organisation of action
      • Exclusions
    • Workplace rights protections
      • Meaning of workplace right
      • Coercion
      • Undue influence or pressure
      • Misrepresentations
      • Requiring the use of COVIDSafe
    • Industrial activities protections
      • What are industrial activities?
      • Coercion
      • Misrepresentations
      • Inducements – membership action
    • Other protections
      • Discrimination
        • Race
        • Colour
        • Gender identity & sexual orientation
        • Age
        • Physical or mental disability
        • Marital status
        • Family or carer’s responsibilities
        • Pregnancy
        • Religion
        • Political opinion
        • National extraction
        • Social origin
      • Exceptions
      • Temporary absence – illness or injury
      • Bargaining services fees
      • Coverage by particular instruments
      • Coercion – allocation of duties to particular person
    • Sham arrangements
      • Misrepresenting employment
      • Dismissing to engage as independent contractor
      • Misrepresentation to engage as independent contractor
    • Making an application
      • Dismissal applications
        • Timeframe for lodgment
        • Extension of time for lodging an application
      • Non-dismissal applications
      • Other types of applications
        • Multiple actions relating to dismissal
        • Unfair dismissal
        • Unlawful termination
        • Court application
        • Discrimination
    • Power to dismiss applications
    • Evidence
    • Commission process
      • Conferences & hearings
      • Dealing with different types of general protections disputes
      • Rescheduling or adjourning matters
      • Representation by lawyers and paid agents
      • Bias
    • Outcomes
    • Costs
      • When are costs ordered by the Commission?
      • Costs against representatives
    • Appeals
    • Role of the Court
      • Enforcement of Commission orders
      • Types of order made by the Court
  • Industrial action benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • What is industrial action?
      • Unprotected industrial action
        • Orders to stop or prevent unprotected industrial action
      • Protected industrial action
        • Immunity
        • Common requirements
        • Employee claim action
        • Employer response action
        • Employee response action
        • Pattern bargaining
    • Taking protected industrial action
      • Protected action ballots
        • Who may apply?
        • Making an application
        • Commission process
        • Varying a protected action ballot order
        • Revoking a protected action ballot order
      • Voting
        • Ballot agents
        • Who may vote – roll of voters
        • Ballot papers
        • Voting procedure
        • Scrutiny of the ballot
        • Results of the ballot
        • When is industrial action authorised?
      • Notice requirements
      • Commencing protected industrial action
    • Payments relating to industrial action
      • Partial work bans
      • Unprotected industrial action – payments
      • Standing down employees
    • Suspension or termination of protected industrial action
      • Powers of the Commission
        • When the Commission may suspend or terminate
        • When the Commission must suspend or terminate
          • Threats to persons or the economy
          • Suspending industrial action
        • Requirements relating to a period of suspension
      • Powers of the Minister
    • Enforcement
    • Appeals
  • JobKeeper benchbook
    • Glossary
    • Introduction
      • Provisions of the Fair Work Act
    • JobKeeper enabling directions – general
      • Service & entitlement accrual
      • When a JobKeeper enabling direction will have no effect
      • Stand downs that are not jobkeeper enabling stand downs
      • Employee requests
    • Jobkeeper enabling stand down directions – entitled employers
      • Directions about duties & location of work
    • Jobkeeper enabling directions – legacy employers
      • Jobkeeper enabling stand down directions – legacy employers
      • Directions about duties & location of work – legacy employers
      • Termination of a jobkeeper enabling direction – legacy employers
    • Agreements about days or times of work
      • Agreements about days or times of work – entitled employers
      • Agreements about days or times of work – legacy employers
      • Termination of an agreement about days or times of work
    • Employer payment obligations
      • Wage condition
      • Minimum payment guarantee
      • Hourly rate of pay guarantee
    • Agreements about annual leave
    • Protections
    • Disputes we cannot assist with
    • Applications to deal with a dispute
      • Who can make an application
      • Responding to an application
      • Objecting to an application
      • Discontinuing an application
    • Commission process
      • General information
      • Conferences & hearings
      • Procedural issues
    • Evidence
    • Outcomes
      • Contravening an order
      • Appeals
      • Role of the Court
    • Attachments
  • Modern Awards Review 2012
    • Introduction
      • Modern Awards Review 2012
  • Sir Richard Kirby Archives
    • Home
    • Sir Richard Kirby
    • About the Archives
    • Cases
      • Case
      • The Honourable Justice Henry Bournes Higgins (1851–1929)
    • Centenary
    • Exhibitions
      • Exhibition launch: The history of the Australian minimum wage
      • Guide – Opening Exhibition
      • International Industrial Dispute Resolution Conference
        • Speaker – Justice Alan Boulton AO
        • Speaker – Mr Arthur F Rosenfeld
        • Speaker – Mr Craig Smith
        • Speaker – Mr James Wilson
        • Speaker – Mr Kieran Mulvey
        • Speaker – Mr Peter Anderson
        • Speaker – Ms Ginette Brazeau
        • Speaker – Ms Nerine Kahn
        • Speaker – Ms Rita Donaghy CBE
        • Speaker – Ms Sharan Burrow
        • Speaker – Senator Guy Barnett
        • Speaker – The Hon. Julia Gillard
      • The Journey
        • Court
          • Early years
          • New court
            • Profile of Justice O'Connor
            • First registration of an industrial organisation
          • Judges & conciliators
          • The Boilermakers' Case
            • The dispute & appeals
        • Commission
          • Post Boilermakers 1956-1973
          • Hawke & Keating governments
            • Industrial Relations Court
          • Howard Government
        • Fair Work Australia
          • The Fair Work system
          • About Fair Work Australia
          • Transition
          • Fair Work timeline
      • The history of the Australian minimum wage
        • The Great Strikes
        • The first minimum wage: The Victorian minimum wage
        • The Harvester Decision
        • The impact of the Great Depression
        • Working it out: Cost of living versus capacity to pay
        • The removal of award rate discrimination
        • The wage explosion & economic crisis
        • The modern era: The development of a modern minimum wage
      • Treasures of the archives
        • Launch speech?Treasures of the Archives
        • 1. Professor Isaac
        • 2. Register of organisations
        • 3. Perlman letters
        • 4. Sir Richard Kirby photograph
        • 5. Oral history program
        • 6. AIRC sign
        • 7. Folder of wage decisions
        • 8. Centenary exhibition
        • 9. Women's exhibition poster
        • 10. Isaac letters
    • The modern era
    • Past Presidents
    • Past Members
      • Past Members 1956 to present
      • Past Members to 1956
  • Unfair dismissals benchbook
    • Overview of unfair dismissal
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Coverage for unfair dismissal
      • Who is protected from unfair dismissal?
      • People excluded from national unfair dismissal laws
        • Independent contractors
        • Labour hire workers
        • Vocational placements & volunteers
        • Public sector employment
      • Constitutional corporations
      • High income threshold
      • Modern award coverage
      • Application of an enterprise agreement
      • What is the minimum period of employment?
        • How do you calculate the minimum period of employment?
        • What is continuous service?
        • What is an excluded period?
      • Bankruptcy
      • Insolvency
    • What is dismissal?
      • When does a dismissal take effect?
      • Terminated at the employer's initiative
      • Forced resignation
      • Demotion
      • Contract for a specified period of time
      • Contract for a specified task
      • Contract for a specified season
      • Training arrangement
      • What is a transfer of employment?
      • Periods of service as a casual employee
      • What is a genuine redundancy?
        • Job no longer required due to changes in operational requirements
        • Consultation obligations
        • Redeployment
      • What is the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code?
    • What makes a dismissal unfair?
      • Valid reason relating to capacity or conduct
        • Capacity
        • Conduct
      • Notification of reason for dismissal
      • Opportunity to respond
      • Unreasonable refusal of a support person
      • Warnings – unsatisfactory performance
      • Size of employer's enterprise and human resources specialists
      • Other relevant matters
    • Making an application
      • Application fee
      • Timeframe for lodgment
      • Extension of time for lodging an application
      • Who is the employer?
      • Multiple actions
      • Discontinuing an application
    • Objecting to an application
    • Commission process
      • Conciliation
      • Hearings and conferences
      • Preparing for hearings and conferences
      • Representation by lawyers and paid agents
      • Rescheduling or adjourning matters
      • Bias
    • Remedies
      • Reinstatement
        • Order for reinstatement cannot be subject to conditions
        • Order to maintain continuity
        • Order to restore lost pay
      • Compensation
        • Calculating compensation
        • Mitigation
        • Remuneration
        • Other relevant matters
        • Compensation cap
        • Instalments
    • Dismissing an application
    • Evidence
    • Costs
      • Costs against representatives
      • Security for costs
    • Appeals
      • Staying decisions
    • Role of the Court
  • Waltzing Matilda and the Sunshine Harvester Factory
    • Introduction
    • The book
      • Book launch
    • The film
      • Film launch
    • Historical material
      • 38 Hour Week Wage Principle [1983]
      • 40 Hour Week Case [1947]
      • 44 Hour Week Case [1927]
      • Apprenticeship indentures
      • Australian Minimum Wage and fitter (trades) rate since 1906
      • Boot Trades Case
      • Careers in Bootmaking and Boot Repairing
      • Cattle Industry Case 1966
      • Commercial Printing Case [1936]
      • Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
      • Cost of living newspaper articles from the early 1900s
      • Debates
      • Equal Pay Case 1969
      • Equal Pay Case 1972
      • Fruit Pickers Case
      • Gas Employees Case
      • Graph of Australian Minimum Wage since 1906
      • Harvester Case
      • Historic case judgments on the Fair Work Commission's website
      • Kingston's evidence
      • Linesmen's Case
      • Maternity Leave Case [1979]
      • Metal trades base level minimum wages [1967–2015]
      • Methods of wage adjustment
        • Establishing an Australian Minimum Wage 1907?1922
          • The origins of the Australian minimum wage
          • The 'needs' principle and 'capacity to pay'
          • Women's wages
          • First indexation decision
        • Quarterly indexation 1922–1953
        • The Great Depression 1931
        • Prosperity loadings 1937
        • World War II 1939–1945
        • The post-war period: 1953–1965 basic wage inquiries
        • The total wage 1966–1967
        • Removal of discrimination in award rates
        • Reintroduction of quarterly wage indexation 1975–1978
        • Six monthly wage indexation 1978–1981
        • Wage explosion 1981–1982
        • Reforming awards and work and management practices 1987–1991
        • Six monthly wage indexation 1983–1987
        • Enterprise bargaining and a minimum wage safety net 1991–1996
        • Statutory adjustments
        • The minimum wage in real terms
      • Mrs Beeton's cookbook
      • Paternity Leave Case [1990]
      • Personal/Carer's Leave Test Case [1995]
      • Piddington report
      • Re Bagshaw [1907]
      • Significant cases on the Fair Work Commission's website
      • Statistics for the purpose of comparison with the Australian minimum wage
      • The Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. The Adelaide Steam-ship Company Limited and Others
      • The Australian minimum wage from 1906
      • The Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen's Association v. The Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association and Others
      • The Victorian minimum wage 1896
        • Legislative Council Second Reading Speech to the Factories and Shops Bill 1896
      • The first Award: 1906 Steam-ship Crew
      • 100 years of the minimum wage—Statistical comparison
    • Mrs Beeton's cookbook
    • Glossary
    • Related sites
    • Educational materials
  • AWRS First Findings report

Footer

  • Site map
  • Legal
  • Copyright
  • Accessibility

Coronavirus (COVID-19) information