Australian law Essay Example

  • Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:

14Australian law

The contract of employment verses the reality today Topic:


to show right and obligations between parties to a negotiation. On the one side is an «employee» who is «employed» by an «employer».labour lawcontract of employment is a class of agreement used in . Now, a conduct is not criminal unless forbidden by law which gives advance warning that such conduct is criminal, employers and employees. It is important to note that Laws are blind to the crimes undefined in it. Further, as per law, «trade unionsof the bond between characters many acts as a go-between and their organizations. As such, it working people, rulings which are administrative, and main clauses which address the legal rights of, and putting conditions on, laws) is the main body of employment law or law (also called Labor law


,Otto Kahn-FreundIt has sprung out of the old “big boss” law, used before the 20th century. Put generally, the contract of employment denotes a relationship of economic reliance and social order of keeping the law. In the words of the a famous labour lawyer Sir

which is in line and must be in agreement in the employment relationship.unequal bargaining power»The relationship between an employer and an isolated employee or worker is generally a relationship between a carrier of power and one who does not own power. In its beginning it is an act of submission, in its operation it is a condition of subordination, however much the compliance and the subordination may be hidden by the crucial figment of the legal mind known as the ‘contract of employment’. The main object of labour law has been, and… will always be a big force to show the other side of the

.trade unions. There were also parts in Work Choices that made it almost impossible for workers to strike, on the other hand gave powers to employers to force their employees onto individual workplace agreements rather than collective agreements, and dismissing clauses from workplace agreements which allowed Australian Industrial Relations Commission instead of going through the Workplace Authority Act did away certain discharge of laws, did away with the «no disadvantage test», and made it possible for workers to give their best agreements one to one to WorkChoices for the Prevention and Settlement of Industrial Disputes going beyond the Limits of any one State». In 2005, the Arbitration and Conciliation was passed showing «Conciliation and Arbitration ActIn 1904 the


• a term in his employment contract by being in conduct that spoilt or destroyed the relationship of mutual trust and trust between the parties.
• main term in his employment contract to offer a safe system of work; and
In that case the plaintiff claimed that the defendant said that:
The plaintiff, Mr. McDonald, was initially a school teacher employed by the defendant, the Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS). The plaintiff was a teacher at Brighton Secondary School, a school run by the defendant.
, after a careful review of English and Australian Law, finally decided that mutual trust and trust is part of Australian Law in employment contracts and must be considered in the case before the court.McDonald v State of South AustraliaThe Supreme Court of South Australia judgment in the case of

• the principal of the school besieged and humiliated the plaintiff when he said that he was being victimized and discriminated against.
• the school was not able to investigate the plaintiff’s complaints that he was being besieged by a number of other employees who took his phone away from him, made copies of his keys and changed his computer access; and
• the school was not able to provide the plaintiff with enough support, training, risk procedures and management of the plaintiff’s rule;
The court ruled that the defendant breached the implied term of mutual confidence and trust in this case. This breach came for reasons such as:
Justice Anderson finalized that, as a cause of the above, mutual confidence is part of Australian law in relation to employment contracts and must be showed in this case.
, in which it was believed that «there is enough authority for the suggestion of a term that the employer will not, without enough cause, lead itself in a way likely to amber or destroy the relationship of trust between the parties as employer and employee».Thomson v Orica Australia Pty Ltd, in which it was taken to mean that trust and confidence was «a sure ingredient in any employment relationship» and is applied to both employers and employees; and Perkins v Grace Worldwide His Honour presented a detailed review of the case law in relationship to the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. This review included a summary of the English cases and the key Australian cases of:
Justice Anderson ended by saying that that the plaintiff was entitled to treat his employment contract as having been repudiated and could therefore constructively dismisses himself. This repudiation occurred as a result of the defendant’s breaches of contract, as well as breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
The plaintiff said that he had no choice other than to end his employment reason being that the above violation amounted to a breach of his employment contract. The plaintiff at last said that he had been cunningly dismissed, that is, his ending of the job was brought about for the reason that the defendant’s breaches of contract.

At last, this duty of mutual trust and confidence can embrace a multitude of situations such as failing to follow a made policy and procedures, if one fail to examine genuine employee problems or expose employees to dishonest or unsafe or unethical conduct by co-workers.

Justice Anderson looked at the above factors and in the end decided that their combined effect was such that the plaintiff could not have been «expected to put up with it». The defendant was, therefore, in breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

Whenever there were cases involving a company in a single state either, a union or industrial organization will put them into a federal award by saying that they are involved in an industry in which a dispute which goes beyond the limits of any one state exist. (This can be achieved by looking for another company which was the same in terms of work and being under them with a bunch of claims at the same time or by desirable quality of a company’s membership of a peak industry body.) On the other hand, if the company was not insured by a federal Award it would be insured by the various States’ industrial relations systems, and disputes are put together or mediated by the state industrial relations commissions which would build up an industry rule Award.

declared plans in 2005 to further use this power to overrule State systems and join the industrial relationship system under the Federal body. The changes proposed also integrated the opening of an independent Australian Fair Pay Commission to set wages, and increased powers for the Office of the Employment Advocate and a corresponding role that was lesser for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.John Howard Government of CoalitionFrom 1993 the Australian federal government has continually used the corporations’ power enclosed in s51 (20) to bring up labour law legislation. This power gives authority to the federal parliament to make laws with respect to «trading and financial corporation’s created in the limits of the Commonwealth», as well as ‘foreign’ corporations. The

. federation for the Prevention and Settlement of Industrial (workplace) claims going beyond the Limits of any one State, and was made to take effect on 15 December 1904, about four years after Arbitration and Conciliation Act that related to Commonwealth Government
AustralianThe Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 was an

). Kingston gave up when Cabinet did not agree to allow the Bill to cover seamen on coastal ships. Labor Members were successful in bringing up an amendment to have the Bill cover State government employees, a provision Deakin thought it to be unconstitutional.Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1894 legislation (New Zealand’s New Zealand, drawing on compulsory arbitration, Australia’s founders of Charles Cameron Kingston. The Bill was drafted and introduced by Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and ArbitrationThis document initiated the rule of law in industrial relations for the entire nation by the

course whereby the parties to a claim (in addition to future interest claims) have agreement of utilizing the services of a conciliator, who then goes to meet with the parties one at a time in an attempt to close their differences. They do this by reducing tensions, making better their communications, solving issues, giving technical assistance, searching for potential solutions and making about a negotiated settlement.alternative claim resolutionConciliation is an

in that the conciliation process, in itself, has no legal standing, and the conciliator usually has no authority to seek evidence or call witnesses, usually writes no decision, and makes no award.arbitrationConciliation varies from

in that the main goal is to conciliate, most of the time by seeking concessions. In mediation, the mediator tries to guide the discussion in a way that optimizes parties’ needs, takes feelings into account and reframes representations.mediationConciliation differs from

In conciliation the parties seldom, if ever, actually face each other across the table in the presence of the conciliator.

.Australia in industrial relations, the main federal statute which regulated Workplace Relations Act 1996 that came into effect in March 2006 which involved many controversial changes to the Legislative Act of the Australian ParliamentThe Workplace Relations Act 1996, as amended by the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, popularly known as Work Choices, was a

activity and recruitment on the work union. It also significantly compromised a workforce’s ability to legally go on strike, requiring workers to bargain for previously-guaranteed conditions without collectivized representation, and significantly restricting Australian Industrial Relations Commission rather than going through the Workplace Authority and was argued to increase employment levels and national economic performance by with unfair dismissal laws for companies under a certain size, removing the «no disadvantage test» which had sought to ensure workers were not left disadvantaged by changes in legislation, and requiring workers submit their certified agreements directly to Howard Government in 2005Work Choices was put in effect by the

consistently ran television advertisements attacking the new laws.Australian Council of Trade UnionsThe passing and implementation of the new laws was strongly opposed by the left side of politics, particularly the trade union movement. Critics argued that the laws stripped away basic employee rights and were fundamentally unfair. The

subsequently won the election, with Work Choices being one of the biggest issues of the campaign, and repealed the entirety of the Work Choices legislation shortly after assuming office.Kevin Rudd (ALP) vowed to abolish it. Labor under Australian Labor PartyWork Choices was a major issue in the 2007 federal election, as the

but a review of published decision shows that extensions are infrequently granted. Fees apply for applications, currently $55.70. [19]Work Choices contains provisions relating to both unfair dismissal and unlawful termination, which are separate matters. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) retains some of its role in hearing unfair dismissal and unlawful termination cases, but increased the emphasis on mediation and conciliation. It also reduced the timeframe within which employees are able to lodge such claims; claims must be lodged within 21 days from the date of termination. Employees can apply for an extension of this timeframe,

Both unjust dismissal and illegal termination disputes passes an initial hearing and compulsory conciliation conference at the AIRC. If and only if the conciliation has been unfruitful and a conciliation certificate given can the dispute go on to the next step. For unjust dismissal disputes, the dispute goes to arbitration by the AIRC, where a Member of the Commission may rule to a decision that binds. For illegal termination disputes, the dispute goes to a court with the required jurisdiction such as the Federal Court or the Industrial Division of the Federal Magistrates Court.

(the Act) as removing and doing away with which is «cruel, unfair or perverse. Employees should work for a business that has over 100 employees, and have provided a qualifying period of 6 months. Other causes that will bar an employee from taking unjust dismissal action comprise where an employee is employed on a renewable basis or on an agreement of employment for a particular period or task, employed on a probationary period that is sensible and decided in progress, a short-term casual employee, a trainee occupied for a certain period, or an employee who is not employed under an Award or workplace contract and making more than $101,300 per year (see Section 638 of the Act for a full list of exclusions).Workplace Relations Act 1996Many restrictions on Work Choices began as to who is able to stage an unjust dismissal claim with the AIRC. Unjust dismissal is cleared by the

to restore the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. Though, the legislation was not in agreement and so did not relate to agreements made between the start of the original Work Choices legislation on 27 March 2006 and the time when the Fairness Test came into life on 7 May 2007.Fairness TestIn reaction to extensive criticism, the government started a

Most of the time it is thought that business is not bound by any ethics other than going by the law. Milton Friedman is the founder of the view. He believed that corporations have the duty to make a profit within the framework of the legal system, nothing more. Friedman made it explicit that the duty of the business leaders is, «to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in the law and those embodied in ethical custom» Ethics for Friedman is nothing more than abiding by ‘customs’ and ‘laws’. The reductions of ethics to abidance to laws and customs however have drawn serious criticisms.

Also, law takes the shape of the accused who is innocent until proven guilty and that the state must show the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. As per liberal laws which are followed in most of the democracies, until the government prosecutor shows in no doubt that the firm guilty with the limited resources available to her, the accused is thought to be innocent. Though the liberal premises of law are necessary to guard individuals from being persecuted by Government, it is not a enough mechanism to make firms morally accountable.

and those that don’t (a class that is often referred to as “know-how”). The function of this viewpoint is to engage with the lawful scholarship on the values that are connected to innovation. To date, the dispute has determined on two different approaches – what may be named the financial and the fairness views. The history may be seen as a reason for the recent regime, while the latter has determined on the alleged requirements of workers (in large part in opposition to the employers). Our disagreement is that these two approaches are both unfinished. rightsThe part of any profit that comes up from worker-generated innovation is complicated by the significance of three separate areas of law – employment law, intellectual property law and equity – and the dissimilarity between those types of originality that draw intellectual property

Implied conditions are contractually enforceable supplies which are taken to be part of the agreement of employment. Conditions may be implied by reality, implied by belief, implied by the common law, or implied by statute. Such conditions do not have to be written into the agreement to be enforceable.

Basically, conditions working in law are default judicial regulations which are to stay put in place in the lack of any agreement by the parties in respect of the deal.   They are implied in law to make a deal valuable. Australian courts have held that workers are under lawful obligations to be obedient, trustworthy and must offer concern and ability to their boss. This is balanced by employers having to act justly and sensibly.

The main employee obligations are submission, fidelity, concern and ability.

An employer has the authority to grant instructions to workers and wait for them to be observed.

The responsibility of fidelity is constituted by numerous responsibilities imposed on workers whilst they are in the service of their boss. Fundamentally, they must serve their boss in good loyalty, they must act to defend their employer’s interests, they must not make undisclosed income at his or her employer’s expenditure, and they must not reveal private information of their boss nor use his or her employer’s time for their own self-serving reasons.

Workers are also expected to carry out their everyday jobs and attain a standard of ability and competence that can sensibly be expected of somebody with their skill and education, as well as not to irrationally cause injury or damage in the course of undertaking their job. 

An employer’s responsibilities entails providing a secure operational surroundings for his or her workers, an obligation to offer job for the reason of the employment deal, and also a responsibility to be an employer of good sense of right and wrong. 

Australian employers are progressively more under an implied duty to act fairly and in good faith. This is an emerging doctrine in the courts. The doctrine has been accepted in the United Kingdom. However, no senior appeal court in Australia has yet affirmed that the policy of trust and assurance is part of employment law. It is possible, though, that such a policy will be certified in some form. For example, there is existing power in Australia for parallel duties where, for example, an employer violates the employment agreement to act in good ethics and in good faith to employees where the employer has by chance rejected to present an employee some benefits made available to other workers and where employees are devalued without good cause upon their come back from maternity leave. 

At last, conditions in an employment contract can also be understood by tradition and practice. The test is fairly burdensome. There must be proof that the custom in subject is so well followed by the parties creating the contract that they can sensibly be likely to have imported the uncertain term into the contract of employment.

The custom must be so well recognized that everybody making the agreement in that position can sensibly be supposed to have imported that term into the contract of employment. This is due to the fact that a great deal of the daily function of employment is ruled by informal consideration and usually by cooperation between the parties. Employer policies and codes of conduct may be applicable in this respect. For instance, an employee may declare a claim to get dismissal through the incorporation of his or her employer rule that was set up to him or her at an introduction to the new employment. 


Legislation and industrial instruments have not held in reserve the pace with alterations in employment practices. The rights and protection given to most employees can and should be offered to employees of labour hire firms. Where the reason is to avoid, or the concern is the elimination of these rights and protection, it is the liability of the State to make sure these rights are protected.

The expansion in use of labour hire employees presents test to employers, unions and government alike. The union movement’s intends to make sure that employees who work for labour hire firms are take care of fairly and not used to decrease costs at the expense of wages and circumstances of employees.

The ACTU considers that suitable regulation and enforcement should be in place to make sure that employees of labour hire firms are given the same rights and protection as workers elsewhere.


. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Employment LawCollins, H. (2003)

Cutler, T. (2008) Venturous Australia: Building Strength in Innovation, Review of the National Innovation System.

(2): 148-163.Intellectual Property QuarterlyDent, C. (2007) ‘To See Patents As Devices Of Uncertain (But Contingent) Quality: A Foucaultian Perspective’

34(3): 765-785.Connecticut Law ReviewFisk, C. (2002) ‘Reflections on the New Psychological Contract and the Ownership of Human Capital’

, Second edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and HermeneuticsFoucault, M. (1983) ‘The Subject and Power’, in H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds),

74(3): 575-629. New York University Law ReviewGilson, R. (1999) ‘The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants not to Compete’

Gordon, C. (ed) (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings 1972 — 1977. Pantheon, New York.

Granstrand, O. (1999) The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property: Towards Intellectual Capitalism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

13(4): 216-230.Creativity and Innovation ManagementHannah, D. (2004) ‘Who Owns Ideas? Beliefs about the Legal Ownership of Ideas?’

17(4): 67-84.Intellectual Property Law Bulletin’ Part 1Harris, S. (2004) ‘Proprietary Ownership and the Employment Relationship –

18(1): 31-52.Philosophy and Public AffairsHettinger, E. (1989) ‘Justifying Intellectual Property’

. Melbourne Institute Working Paper 22/02.Intellectual Capital: Accumulation and AppropriationHunter, L. (2002)

. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.Innovation and Its DiscontentsJaffe, A. and Lerner, J. (2004)

47(4): 659-672.South Carolina Law ReviewKitch, E. (1996) ‘The Expansion of Trade Secrecy Protection and the Mobility of Management Employee: A New Problem for the Law’

. Belknap Press, Cambridge MA. The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property LawLandes, W. and Posner, R. (2003)

19(2): 75-98.Journal of Economic PerspectivesLemley, M. and Shapiro, C. (2005) ‘Probabilistic Patents’

76(1): 49-76.Indiana Law JournalLester, G. (2001) ‘Restrictive Covenants, Employee Training and the Limits of Transaction-Cost Analysis’

. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and DevelopmentLevin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1987)

, Third edition, LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney.Intellectual Property in AustraliaMcKeough, J., Stewart, A. Griffith, P. (2004)

ISBN 0199249261 (2003) Oxford University Press, The Personal Employment ContractMark Freedland,

13(1): 1-54.Harvard Journal of Law & TechnologyMerges, R. (1999) ‘The Law and Economics of Employee Inventions’