Browsing: General protections and adverse action | Page 55 (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 company must reinstate an ETU delegate for at least six months until the outcome of his adverse action claim, the Federal Court finding "some evidence" connecting the dismissal with his union role.
The ailing 86-year-old director of a newspaper publishing company has been ordered to pay $27,500 to a journalist he sacked seven years ago, a day after he refused to withdraw a complaint to the Fair Work Ombudsman over underpayments.
A senior FWC member put legal technicalities ahead of the merits of a case when he dismissed an experienced HR manager's general protections claim for her "implausible" error in misnaming the respondent, a full bench has found.
A senior FWC member has highlighted continuing difficulties faced by unrepresented applicants in distinguishing between the unfair dismissal and general protections jurisdictions, allowing a casual worker's claim to proceed despite him filing it a week late.
An industrial tribunal has rejected a union's argument that allowing a large employer to use an external lawyer will render a general protections case "unnecessarily adversarial".
In an important interlocutory ruling, the Federal Court has today restrained mining giant BHP Coal from stopping a reinstated labour hire mineworker returning to the job at its Bowen Basin coal mine.
AustralianSuper has defended its dismissal of a senior investment executive who claimed he was targeted for raising conflict-of-interest concerns, countering that it was his "us versus them mentality" that led to his demise.
An Aboriginal corporation has been ordered to pay total compensation of $67,503 to three cultural heritage field officers sacked after failing to prove ancestral connections, including $15,000 in general damages for "emotional upset".
The FWC has refused permission for a senior HR manager to correctly identify her employer in a general protections claim after the company's US parent argued she had intentionally named it at the first instance for "strategic benefit".
The Federal Circuit Court has blasted a solicitor over his "complete failure" to adequately explain his late lodgement of a worker's adverse action claim, observing his client "deserved much better".
