During the review of the case, Luke Forsyth, CEO of Hall Payne, immediately found two potential breaches of the enterprise agreement that previous companies had apparently missed. He found that, contrary to the advice of other companies, the employee appeared to have a case of dismissal in violation of the Fair Work Act 2009 of general protection for exercising an occupational law by complaining about the behaviour of her supervisor. The worker claimed that she was dismissed because she had filed complaints of moral harassment against her superior and that the university had violated its enterprise agreement by failing to meet its redundancy and redeployment obligations. Subsequently, the worker made several attempts to apply for various positions at the university during a redeployment period. Not everyone succeeded. The university also refused to allow her to apply for positions for which she was qualified and qualified. To determine the “real reason” for our client`s termination, Hall Payne had to introduce a complex university redundancy and redeployment clause in the Macquarie University Enterprise Agreement. The clause created a façade of adequacy and natural justice that was used to mask the illegal actions of Macquarie University. In a significant victory, Hall Payne recently won more than $650,000 in compensation for a university employee. In the case of Tran/Macquarie University, the employer resigned from the employee following a complaint about his supervisor. Macquarie University also showed no clear remorse for its illegal conduct – surprising given the seriousness of the illegal behaviour and its stature as a publicly funded university, which should have treated its employees with dignity and respect and respected their legitimate obligations.
Our team is fully equipped to work remotely while providing quality legal services. In finding the offences, the court found that Macquarie University did not take in the mouth the evidence of this superior or members of the management team who would have accepted the restructuring proposal. This was fatal in the case of Macquarie University. However, the Court found that the offence of no redeployment merited a heavier sanction, as it concerned a senior executive who refused priority interviews of workers for two positions identified as potential redeployment opportunities. In July 2019, Hall Payne represented the worker at the hearing of her appeal to the Federal Court of Justice, which is due to result from her dismissal on June 19, 2017. 49. APPEAL PROCEDURE 50. DISPUTE SETTLING PROCEDURES You can find the latest “Coronavirus and Client Services” updates by clicking here. 17. HOURS OF WORK 18. MANAGING STAFF WORKLOADS 19.
FLEXIBLE WORK 20. OUT OF WORK 21. FREEDOM OF MIND 22. HEALTH AND SAFETY23. Sustainability. 46. UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE 47. MISCONDUCT AND GROSS MISCONDUCT 48.
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT The Court also found that the failure to inform the worker of two positions available for redeployment and the refusal to interview both positions, once the worker was informed, constituted a “clear violation” of the obligations under the agreement, constituted actively positions for position positions or rights to priority interviews.