Compensation ordered despite employee’s discriminatory conduct
The importance of procedural fairness has been highlighted in the recent unfair dismissal judgment of Ning Li v PPD Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 496. The employee, a senior import & export coordinator for PPD Australia, was first given a verbal warning following three complaints from female job
Employer ordered to pay $150,000 to harassed employee
An employer has been handed a massive penalty after being found vicariously liable for the sexual harassment and assault of an employee by a colleague, in a recent Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal judgment. A female beauty therapist employed at ‘Man Oh Man’ suffered persistent sexual harassment from
ATAGI updates terminology regarding COVID-19 vaccine status
The term ‘fully vaccinated’ is being phased out in regards to COVID-19 vaccines, with ATAGI now recommending the use of ‘up to date’ and ‘overdue’. Since the introduction of public health orders relating to vaccines in late 2021, the term ‘fully vaccinated’ has been used as
Case Law Update: COVID-19 Vaccination Exemptions
The procedural fairness demonstrated by two employers has been recognised, in two recent decisions involving employees who had unsuccessfully sought exemptions from being vaccinated against COVID-19. Edwards v Regal Cream Products Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 257 In the first case, an unvaccinated employee (Edwards) was dismissed
High Court Hands Down Independent Contractor Judgments
The High Court has handed down two significant judgments in relation to independent contractor arrangements. Both decisions highlight the need for contractual terms to determine working relationships and the primacy of contractual terms. CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting [2022] HCA 1 In the first case, the CFMMEU
FWC Makes First Anti-Sexual Harassment Ruling
The Fair Work Commission has published its first decision relative to a claim using the new anti-sexual harassment jurisdiction, in a judgment delivered on 24 December 2021. The Applicant, THDL, sought an order against two employees of a neighbouring company which conducted its business in shared
