© 2020 admin

Bench Book Enterprise Agreements

WorkPac Pty Ltd/Rossato [2020] FCAFC 84 INDUSTRIAL LAW – An employer`s request to find that a worker cannot enforce the rights of national employment standards to paid annual leave, compassionate care leave and compassionate leave because he was a casual worker under ss 86, 95 and 106 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Fth) (FW Act) and was unable to enforce the corresponding rights of the existing enterprise agreement, because he was a “casual Field Team Member” (FTM) – given the nature of the worker`s employment – taking into account the term “firm prior obligation” used in some authorities with respect to casual employment – workers are not casual workers under the FW Act or a casual FTM Act. RESTITUTION – Workers paid by employers at a flat-rate hourly rate under the employment contracts alleged by the employer contain an identifiable occasional burden – the employer stated that if the Court of Justice found that the worker was not a casual worker under the FW Act or an occasional FTM under the enterprise contract, it was legitimate to return the occasional burden, since the worker was unjustly enriched – the employer sought restitution for error and non-consideration. INDUSTRIAL LAW – Employers have argued that, if the Court of Justice found that the worker was not a casual worker under the FW Act or that it was a fortuitous MTC under the enterprise contract, it was entitled to take into account the sums paid to him as compensation against the rights he invoked, that the employer should have the right to take into account a portion of his compensation paid to the worker in order to fulfill his obligations. it asserted – the benefit of an employer contractually paid to a worker to fulfil its legal obligations to the worker – the employer`s wages were not used to fulfill the legal obligations to claim paid leave from the worker – against reg 2.03A of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) – an employer that has no right to take into account the amounts. Lamont v University of Queensland (No. 2) [2020] FCA 720 INDUSTRIAL LAW – Employment – If adverse actions taken by respondents under the 342 (1) Fair Work Act 2009 (CTH) (FWA) – if the applicant has been adversely acted upon as a result of the exercise of labour law in violation of the Labour Act340 (1) the FWA – that the university is responsible for the negative actions of officials after 793 of the FWA – charges of violation of AWA s 340 (1) were partially confirmed – compensation according to SWA 545 of FWA INDUSTRIAL LAW – employment – if the university entered into enterprise agreements – if the university violated tacit employment contracts. The opponent of the first appeal pays the applicant $15,000 as compensation for losses resulting from the offences committed by the opponent of the first appeal against s 340 (1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Qantas Airways Ltd v Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association [2020] FCA 682 INDUSTRIAL LAW – request for an injunction in the nature of an injunction – if the respondent asked the Fair Work Commission to settle a dispute over the termination of aircraft maintenance engineers licensed during the global pandemic, In accordance with the dispute settlement clause contained in the enterprise agreements and after the application for the hearing was made, the applicant opened proceedings before the Court of Justice on the same subject – if the applicant requested a provisional action preventing the Commission from taking action or requiring the applicant, in the Commission`s procedure, to take, pending the decision of the judicial proceedings, whether it was an exception , if the balance of comfort and the interests of justice in favour of motions were sought.