"Women in IR" high tea leads to discrimination bid
Thomson promises to make "comprehensive" statement at next parliamentary sitting
Follow-up Monadelphous Engineering protected action ballot approved
Attempt to reduce redundancy pay rejected
"Women in IR" high tea leads to discrimination application
A fundraising "high tea" for women in IR resulted in the vice-president of the Queensland IR Society facing a discrimination action from a member with extreme food allergies.
The member, who sought to be allowed to attend the October 2010 event for free because she could not eat the food, initially took action in the Human Rights Commission, which terminated the complaint because it could not be settled by conciliation.
The member then took her complaint to the Federal Magistrates Court, but Federal Magistrate Michael Jarrett upheld an application by IRSQ vice-president Joanna Minchinton to dismiss the application because it had no prospect of success.
Federal Magistrate Jarrett also ordered the member to pay Minchinton's costs.
When the member applied to be allowed to attend the event for free and settle any bill for drinks directly with the venue, Minchinton explained that the entry fee was designed to cover the cost of the venue, audio-visual hire, food and drink and to raise money.
Unhappy with this response, the member took the matter up with the IRSV president, Dale Himstedt, who suggested that she pay $25. She accepted this offer and attended the event.
However, in August last year, the member took the matter to the Human Rights Commission arguing that severe allergic reactions and life-threatening anaphylaxis make it difficult to attend social events involving food and that Minchinton had discriminated against her by placing her in a less advantageous position than others attending who were able to eat the food in an unlimited way.
Federal Magistrate Jarrett, however, did not accept that any of the member's arguments brought into play any of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.
He continued that the member had agreed to participate in the event when offered a reduced entry fee.
"Having accepted that offer, [the member] was provided with the relevant services at a cost which she must have accepted (although perhaps grudgingly) represented a reasonable compromise."
Mulcahy v Minchinton [2012] FMCA 380 (4 May 2012)
Thomson promises to make full statement at next parliamentary sitting
In the wake of the release this week of the FWA general manager's report into his conduct, Federal member for Dobell and former HSU national secretary Craig Thomson has told Parliament this afternoon that he would make a "comprehensive statement" to Parliament next time it sits.
The House of Representatives rises tomorrow evening at the conclusion of the Budget sitting and the next sitting begins on Monday, May 21, and ends on Thursday, May 31.
Follow-up Monadelphous Engineering protected action ballot approved
After rejecting the CFMEU's initial attempt to rely on employer inaction to establish it was genuinely trying to bargain with Monadelphous Engineering (see Related Article), Commissioner Susan Booth has now approved the union's follow-up protected action ballot application.
Commissioner Booth said she was satisfied that CFMEU bargaining representatives had "attended further meetings, clearly articulated its claims, conceded to the employer's counterclaims, made concessions and is continuing on that process".
She said that the company had not disputed these claims and that the authority of JJ Richards (see Related Article) meant that she could conclude that these steps meant the union was "genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted".
She said she was also satisfied that the CFMEU was eligible to be the appointed bargaining representative of at least one Monadelphous Engineering employee.
Commissioner Booth said that disagreement between the union and the company "as to the breadth of the coverage, including whether [the CFMEU] is eligible to represent employees such as scaffolders, riggers and dogmen, and the fact that the union might agitate for other employees is not a matter for its status as a bargaining representative".
Attempt to reduce redundancy pay rejected
A hairdressing company has been unsuccessful in attempting to reduce redundancy pay due to a former employee on the grounds that the employee did not accept a "tailor made" alternative position.
Oscar Oscar Pty Ltd argued that it had done enough to provide an alternative position for the hair stylist and educator.
However, Commissioner Robyn Asbury said she did not accept that the position offered – which came with a lower salary, increased restraint provisions and less emphasis on the employee’s preference for educating other hair stylists - was an "acceptable alternative".
Commissioner Asbury said the employee had been employed to work as a stylist in one of the company’s hair salons one day per week and to work four days per week travelling to carry out education, training and ambassadorial functions in Queensland and interstate.
The "alternative position would have meant a total reversal of the previous position" with the employee working in a salon four days per week and performing an education role one day each week "and possibly not at all".
She said that although the work involved in the alternative position was within the employee's skills, competence and training, she had "actively sought to create a career in education, and had negotiated an employment contract with her employer in order to carry out that work".
"The alternative position is a fundamentally different position, when the respective education content of the two roles is considered."
Commissioner Asbury ruled that the former employee was entitled to the full redundancy amount of six weeks, which totalled $7,500.
Oscar Oscar Group Services Pty Ltd v Ms Alyce Lees [2012] FWA 3901 (4 May 2012)