Browsing: General protections and adverse action | Page 4 (745 items)
Viewing all articles in "General protections and adverse action" which contains two sub-topics, select one from the list below to further narrow your browsing.
A full Federal Court has thrown out Serco's appeal against a finding that a senior manager sacked a trainer after he complained about the way she conducted a bullying investigation.
The Federal Court has today ordered an employee to pay indemnity costs, after he unreasonably refused his employer's "entirely reasonable and sensible" request for a "brief period of voluntary restraint", forcing it to obtain an order to suppress evidence in his general protections application.
The ABC must pay $70,000 compensation for non-economic loss to presenter Antoinette Lattouf for terminating her employment for reasons including that she held a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, after a Federal Court ruling this morning.
A former Google software engineer who accused the tech giant's HR staff of bullying will not get to pursue it for adverse action after the FWC comprehensively rejected claims that two law firms and two barristers were to blame for a five-month delay in filing her case.
A chief financial officer who made exaggerated claims to "shoehorn" them into adverse action provisions has failed to establish that his complaints about homophobic jibes and supposedly illegal accounting practices led to his unlawful sacking.
A judge has criticised Aldi for adopting an "unnecessarily technical position" against a self-represented worker but ultimately rejected his bid for a six-month extension to file a general protections claim, after finding he falsified medical evidence.
A $400,000-a-year company lawyer's adverse action case has fallen at the first hurdle after the FWC found him bound by a settlement deed despite claims that its terms had not been finalised.
The FWC has rejected an employer's $5000 costs claim against a self-represented worker while questioning its use of lawyers, finding some expenses not "judiciously incurred" in defending her constructive dismissal case.
A new UK bill introduced by the Starmer Labour Government seeks to reduce the qualifying period for protection from unfair dismissal from two years to an employee's first day of work, although employers will potentially have an initial nine months in which to sack those "not right for the job".
The Federal Circuit and Family Court has told a senior manager it lacks the power to declare Bunnings breached whistleblower laws when it allegedly sacked him after he accused it of short-changing staff, but it can award compensation if his claims succeed as part of his adverse action case.
