No Comments

Employment Law – Bupa Criticised for Disciplinary Process

Employment Law – Background 

The Fair Work Commission has found that a vulnerable aged care worker was unfairly dismissed due to her employer, Bupa Aged Care, acted unconscionably. Bupa were criticized for their “unprofessional, discourteous and unfair” disciplinary process.

Employment Law – Facts 

In essence:

  • Shahin Tavassoli, a refugee from Iran with limited English skills, was employed by Bupa
  • On the weekend of 13-14 November 2016, a colleague secretly recorded her on his mobile singing “I can do anything better than you” following a heated exchange between a resident and a nurse and also allegedly laughing and joking at the death of two residents
  • A second video, recorded the following day, allegedly captured her sitting in the TV room ignoring resident’s buzzers
  • These videos were shown to David Brice, acting general manager of Bupa Mosman a Miriam Lyman, care manger
  • On 16 November, Tavassoli attended work training. However, at 2pm Brice escorted her from the premises, only telling her that there had been serious allegations made against her and he was waiting for more documentation in a few hours.
  • In the two hours Tavassoli allegedly sat outside the facility, she jumped to the conclusion that the allegation may involve beer that a resident offered her. Determined not be terminated for stealing, she asked a college for help drafting a resignation letter. Brice didn’t accept this resignation letter
  • In a meeting with Tavassoli at 4pm, Brice read letters from Bupa containing allegations of misconduct and informed Tavassoli was being suspended on pay for an investigation
  • She never received a copy of this correspondence or the video footage
  • Brice also informed that unless she altered the date of her resignation, she was required to partake in the investigation. She then scribbled out the initial 4 weeks’ notice and gave the resignation back
  • The next day, Brice sent her a letter accepting her resignation. However, the following day Tavassoli attended the facility to rescind her resignation which was refused

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

Resignation or constructive dismissal?

The Fair Work Commission:

  • found Ms Tavassoli was constructively dismissed, on the basis that Mr Brice should have taken additional steps to ensure she understood the investigation and the effect of her resignation
  • believed Ms Tavassoli should have been “provided with copies of the letters and sent home to discuss them with her family”
  • stated it was not “satisfactory to say Ms Tavassoli resigned at her own free will when Bupa knew of Ms Tavassoli’s poor language skills and her emotional state”
  • found that Mr Brice suggesting an amendment to the resignation letter suggests that the termination “becomes one at the invitation of the employer”
  • also believed that it was unconscionable for Mr Brice to escort Ms Tavassoli from the premises and advise her not to return for 2 hours, without providing a reason for such process.

Was the dismissal unfair?

The Fair Work Commission:

  • found Bupa did not have a valid reason for dismissal on the basis that she hadn’t been acting in a disrespectful manner when she sung, nor had she laughed at the deaths of residents. It was found that she had also been on a break during the footage and had not been required to attend to residents buzzers
  • were critical of Bupa’s disciplinary process, labelling them “unprofessional, discourteous and unfair” in finding that Ms Tavassoli was not given anything in writing, not shown the video footage and was not given a proper opportunity to respond.
  • held that the dismissal was unfair, harsh and unjust
  • ordered that Ms Tavassoli be reinstated and paid her base pay for November 2016 to July 2017

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink: [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Dismissal for Drug Test Refusal Invalid

Employment Law – Background

The Fair Work Commission has held that a company who dismissed an employee for refusing to provide a blood sample for a drug test had no valid reason to do so.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • Green was employed by Lincon Hire & Sales as a work platform operator
  • On 1 March 2017, Lincon received anonymous information that the employee and others were using drugs
  • Lincon’s drug and alcohol policy allows random drug testing, and asserts that refusal to partake will be considered a positive test, allowing for potential disciplinary action, including dismissal
  • On 6 March 2017 all employees underwent a drug test. Green provided a negative sample. However, Lincon received further anonymous messages claiming that Green and others had used substitute samples
  • On 7 March 2017, Green was informed he had to undergo a blood test because the previous tests had been “fudged”
  • Employees, including Green, felt that a blood test was an invasion of privacy and Green offered to do a urine test instead
  • Green failed to attend the blood test appointment organised by Lincon. A company representative informed Green that he would be dismissed if he failed to submit the test Green did not attend a second appointment
  • Lincon attempted to contact Green and the other employees, however one employee told them they were “sticking together” and would not have the blood test. Green was dismissed the same day

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

The Fair Work Commission:

  • found that Lincon’s policy did not specify the type of testing used and had no provision about blood samples
  • found that Green was allowed to question the test method
  • looked at evidence which showed that the urine collection process for the first test was closely supervised, and the fact there was “no suggestion, the sample was beyond the applicable temperature range or creatinine level, which could suggest it was not genuine”
  • believed no satisfactory explanation was provided by Lincon as to why a blood test was required
  • established request made of Green to undertake a blood test was “not expressly permitted by the policy and was not a reasonable direction”
  • held that there was no valid reason for dismissal
  • awarded Green $8150 in compensation or the equivalent of 8 weeks’ pay including notice, plus a 20% reduction for Green’s misconduct in secretly recording phone conversations with management

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

Shannon Green v Lincon Logistics Pty Ltd T/A Lincon Hire & Sales [2017] FWC 4916 (20 September 2017)

Employment Law – Tips for Employers  [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Employee Compensated After Award Obligations Ignored

Employment Law – Background

The Fair Work Commission has compensated an employee who was unfairly dismissed because her employer failed to comply with their consultation obligations under the relevant award.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • Carer’s that Care (CTC) terminated Ms Morris’ employment because it could not afford to pay her full-time wage after losing a significant number of clients
  • Ms Morris argued that she hadn’t received any warnings but was only told that CTC was shutting down and staff would be made redundant
  • She also argued that she was not provided with the opportunity to respond, because the managing director refused to have any discussions with Morris
  • Morris lodged an application for unfair dismissal

Employment Law – The Relevant Law

  • Section 389 of the Fair Work Act (‘The Act’) states that a genuine redundancy occurs when an employee’s position is no longer required and the employer has complied with any obligations under the modern award or enterprise agreement
  • The Fair Work Commission will then examine whether the dismissal was harsh, unreasonable or unjust under s387 of the Act

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission decision

The Fair Work Commission:

  • found that the employee’s dismissal was not a genuine redundancy because the consultation obligations under the Clerks-Private Sector Award were not satisfied
  • accepted that Ms Morris was dismissed because her role could no longer be performed due to operational changes
  • found that the company had failed to consult with Ms Morris as required under the award was significant. Additionally, the company only verbally notified Morris of the dismissal
  • consequently ruled that her dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
  • ordered compensation of $5482

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

Morris v Community Caring P/L t/a Carers That Care (U2017/6386) [2017] FWC 4433

Employment Law – Tips for Employers  [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Court Dismisses Employee’s Misleading Conduct Claim

Employment Law – Background

The Federal Court has rejected a high earning employee’s claim that her employer engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct when the media company told her that her new role would be “long-term”.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • Nunn Media dismissed their head of strategy during her probationary period, alleging she was often late and the quality of her work did not meet their standards
  • However, the employee claimed that Nunn Media had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct because when recruiting her they said if she was hired, it would be a “long-term” commitment
  • She claimed that she was dismissed because she made a complaint about a director’s work performance and took personal leave for illness
  • To support her claim she relied on an email from the managing director to another employee which said “WTF (what the f***) in response to the employee informing Nunn Media that she required time off to see a doctor.

Employment Law – Decision

The Federal Circuit Court:

  • found that the managing director’s “WTF” remark was not “evidence that the illness or injury of the [employee] or that she was taking leave was a reason for the termination of her employment”, it was merely an expression of exasperation.
  • found that by the time the managing director had made that remark, he had already taken steps to replace the employee.
  • stated that the employee had demonstrated unsatisfactory performance in three company projects and the “only reason” the managing director dismissed her was because he believed she was unable to perform in her role.
  • held that Nunn Media had not engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct
  • believed that the employee had left her previous job because she was about to become redundant and there was “significant financial incentive”, being a $55,000 a year salary increase, to take the role at Nunn Media.

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

Maxutova v Nunn Media Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 2336 (26 September 2017)

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers: [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – No Compensation for Employee who fibbed on CV

Employment Law – Background

The Fair Work Commission has held that a company’s failure to provide notice to a finance manager rendered her termination unfair. However in an interesting turn of events, declined to award compensation because she “deliberately deceived” them of her qualifications.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • In her application for an accountancy role at Spectrum Community Focus Limited, the manager claimed that her qualifications included “ASA-CPA Australia” (an associate member, who had six years to complete training to become a full member of the professional body for accountants) and had an MBA
  • She later became the finance manager, reporting directly to the CEO and board of directors and responsible for preparing financial reports
  • In November in the lead up to her dismissal, she made several blunders including failing to file the company’s return to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) by the required time frame. She also made several mistakes with the 2015 reports, including not reporting an apparent $600,000 loss to the managing director
  • On November 30 the managing director detailed the allegations against the finance manager in a letter, including the claim that she reported a loss of $86,000 when the correct position was a $322,908 profit.
  • On December 14, the company met with the finance manager who blamed the managing director and others for the allegations in the November 30, letter
  • She was immediately dismissed for serious misconduct instituted by her late lodgement to the ACNC, her poor financial reporting and her attitude towards the allegations made against her

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

The Fair Work Commission:

  • believed that the finance manager caused the company “serious damage” when she failed to file its ACNC return within the timeframe or provide acceptable financial reports for 2015
  • found that the manager’s dismissal was not unfair “except in one limited respect”, as the company failed to provide her notice of termination which set out the reasons for her dismissal
  • believed that her dismissal for serious misconduct would have been better characterised as ‘poor performance’, which normally justifies notice
  • declined to award compensation because she had “deliberately deceived” the company of her qualifications when she applied for the position. She admitted that she did not have a master’s degree and was not an associate member of the CPA Australia
  • Stated it “would be reasonable to infer that at least part of the [finance manager’s] poor performance was due to the fact she was ‘out of her depth’ in performing the finance manager’s role”

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

Emma Valenzuela v Spectrum Community Focus Limited t/as Spectrum Community Focus [2017] FWC 5007 (4 October 2017) [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Fair Work Commission – Settlement Prevents Dismissal Claim

The Fair Work Commission has thrown out an unfair dismissal application because the employee had previously agreed to a settlement with his employer.

Facts

In essence:

  • In November 2016, Mr Singh was dismissed from his team leader role at Sydney Trains after an investigation into two safety incidents in August 2015
  • Singh was dismissed for failure to follow safety policies, procedures and guidelines whilst working in a safety critical location, causing significant risk of harm to himself, his team and the public
  • He applied for unfair dismissal under s 394 of the Fair Work Act
  • On 13 February, Singh’s solicitor wrote to Sydney Trains solicitor proposing terms of settlement, including that Singh be re-employed in an administrative role
  • Sydney Trains replied adding various qualifications regarding medical assessments and the requirement that a deed of release be signed
  • The deed of release was given to Singh and he agreed to settle the application in principle based on the terms in the draft deed.
  • Minor alternations were made and the Fair Work Commission was notified that they could vacate the hearing dates
  • However, by March Singh’s solicitor had failed to act and there was confusion over whether a binding settlement was made

The Arguments

  • Sydney Trains claimed that a binding settlement had been reached, so the unfair dismissal claim should be dismissed. The essential terms of settlement were agreed, regardless of the amendments and qualifications.
  • Singh claimed that there was no binding settlement because the qualifications made by Sydney Trains were a counter-offer replacing his original offer. He didn’t accept the counter-offer, so therefore there was no binding agreement.

Fair Work Commission Decision

The Fair Work Commission:

  • determined that Sydney Trains demonstrated the intention to be bound by the essential terms of the offer. Their rewritten offer was merely in a more detailed form, which had no difference in effect
  • decided this on the basis that “the parties would have hardly agreed to vacate the four days of hearing and the associated and not insubstantial costs involved, if there was not a plain and obvious intention that the matter had been settled in principle” and there was no communication by Singh’s solicitor that the offer was rejected
  • therefore held that the settlement was legally binding
  • determined that as the settlement was in effect, Singh’s unfair dismissal application had no reasonable chance of success and was dismissed under s587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:
Subeg Singh v Sydney Trains (U2016/12864)

Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • review this Fair Work Commission decision
  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this Fair Work Commission decision
  • ensure compliance with all employment laws including Fair Work Commission decisions, Awards and enterprise agreements
  • raise any questions with an employment lawyer

More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Bullying Allegations Reasonable Management Action

Employment Law – Background

The Fair Work Commission has thrown out an anti-bullying claim brought by an aged care employee as her employer’s conduct was considered to be reasonable management action in response to her inappropriate conduct.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • the employee alleged she had been frequently bullied by her manager and supervisor since 2014
  • amongst various bullying allegations, she alleged that her manager screamed on many occasions, chased and ambushed her, spoken about her in highly derogatory terms and refused to grant leave when her daughter was having a medical procedure
  • the employee also claimed her supervisor also bullied through his handling of investigations and allegations made by and about her making her feel “scared”
  • both the supervisor and manager denied the allegations and claimed that the employee had frequently been aggressive to the manager including yelling personal insults and pointing her finger in the manager’s face, following her into her office and blocking the exit
  • the employee also challenged the procedural fairness of her employer’s quick decision in providing a “show cause” letter quickly after she had addressed issues raised in a counselling meeting
  • however, the employer argued that on each incident they had carried out reasonable management action by issuing formal warnings and counselling meetings before issuing the letter

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

The Fair Work Commission:

  • dismissed the workers application
  • acknowledged that it “may have been preferable for the employer not to finalise its conclusions in its letter to [her] on 20 January before concluding its views concerning her grievances”
  • nevertheless, concluded that the on the evidence presented the conduct of both the manager and supervisor was “at all times reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner”
  • noted that the evidenced pointed to the employee’s own conduct being inappropriate on the occasions she alleged the bullying occurred

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

Application by E.K [2017] FWC 3907 (21 August 2017)

Employment Law – Tips for Employers [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Fair Work Commission: Support Person in Disciplinary Meetings

Employment Law – Background

The Fair Work Commission has ruled that a HR manager should not have allowed a company a manager to be put forward as a ‘support person’ for an employee who was under threat of dismissal.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • the employee, a retail supervisor at RACV’s Cape Schanck Resort, sought to have the company’s manager present as her ‘support person’ at a disciplinary meeting
  • however, the company opposed this as the selected ‘support person’ worked directly with the employee

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision:

The Fair Work Commission:

  • determined that the resort manager “should not have allowed his name to be put forward as a potential support person” and HR also shouldn’t have allowed it to occur
  • held that the resort manager could “by no means be regarded as someone who would give [the retail supervisor] ‘support’ in any of the capacities implied by that word; whether as an advisor, counsellor or representative”
  • suggested the selection was inappropriate as the resort manager was in “attendance at the [disciplinary] meeting on Friday, 24 March 2017 as the management representative” and “he was the one who signed the letter of dismissal” to the retail supervisor
  • nevertheless held that the company had not unreasonably refused to allow the retail supervisor to have a support person present at the meeting
  • upheld the employee’s dismissal

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

Leanne Trembath v RACV Cape Schanck Resort [2017] FWC 4727 (13 September 2017)

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • review this Fair Work Commission decision
  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this Fair Work Commission decision
  • seek advice from an employment lawyer on who may be an appropriate support person if in doubt
  • train HR managers/staff about this Fair Work Commission decision
  • raise any employment law questions with an employment lawyer

Employment Law – More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Huge Payout for Employment Contract Repudiation

Employment Law – Background

A senior accountant whose employment contract was repudiated by accountancy firm Crowe Horwath has been awarded almost $425,000 in damages by a Victorian court.

Employment Law – Decision:

Justice McDonald of the Victorian Supreme Court:

  • held that that the senior accountant was entitled to 12 months pay and superannuation ($281,667) and a $142,778 bonus for 2015/2016 that he would have received if the firm had not repudiated his employment contract in July 2016
  • rejected the firm’s argument that the accountant’s employment contract would have ended when the firm implemented a restructure which was opposed by the employee in August 2016, and would have prompted a six-month termination payment
  • costs and interests have not yet been decided

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

Crowe Horwath (Aust) Pty Ltd v Loone (No 3) [2017] VSC 548 (15 September 2017)

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • review this employment contract case decision
  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this decision
  • ensure compliance with all employment laws including Fair Work Commission decisions, Awards and enterprise agreements
  • understand what employment laws apply at your workplace including Awards and enterprise agreements
  • review your employment contracts and employment law policies at least once every 12 months to ensure they remain current with workplace practices and all employment laws
  • damages can apply for breaches of employment contracts and some employment law policies (which an employment lawyer can advise on)
  • penalties can apply for breaches of employment laws including Awards and enterprise agreements (which an employment lawyer can advise on)
  • raise any employment law questions with an employment lawyer

Employment Law – More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Dismissal for Leaving Accident Reasonable

Employment Law – Background

The Fair Work Commission has ruled that a mining worker who was involved in an accident and failed to follow his employer’s incident management procedures by reporting the accident immediately was not unfairly dismissed.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • Mr Edgar was employed by Swick Mining Services as an underground diamond driller.
  • In April 2017, the light vehicle he was driving underground at the mine site collided with a wall, causing major damage to the vehicle. However, he changed a damage vehicle’s tyre and drove it up to the surface before reporting the incident.
  • After investigation, he was dismissed for breaching Swick’s incident management procedure
  • In dismissing him, Swick took into account Edgar’s three prior warnings and the fact the client would not accept him back on site.
  • Edgar argued that whilst he had hadn’t followed procedure, employees had not been dismissed for other safety incidents. He also claimed that he was exhausted at the time of the accident, and his request for the night off prior to the accident was refused.
  • Edgar further argued that Swick’s prior warnings were designed to make him resign following his workplace compensation injury and that during a meeting discussing outcome of the investigation he he was given a pre-prepared letter of termination.

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

The Fair Work Commission:

  • found that Mr Edgar’s breach of process was a valid reason for dismissal
  • noted Swick’s evidence that Edgar’s leave request was denied as he told his supervisor he was fit for work and that Mr Edgar’s statement on the day of the accident didn’t mention falling asleep or being tired
  • there was no evidence that the warnings were designed to make Edgar to resign
  • highlighted whilst the pre-prepared termination letter was a “reason for concern”, the outcome would have been unaffected
  • concluded that the termination was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

Nicholas Edgar v SMS Operations Pty Ltd T/A Swick Mining Services [2017] FWC 3826 [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Fair Work Commission Allows Late Dismissal Claim

Employment Law – Background:

In Yu Duo (Lynda) Lin v Woolworths Limited, the Fair Work Commission found that a mix of three factors including a “significant” mental illness, justified extending the time for an unfair dismissal application lodged 164 days late for a Woolworths worker.

Employment Law – Facts:

In essence:

  • The worker was employed at Woolworths Prahran store’s delicatessen in May 2014. However, her weekly hours were dropped from 20 or 30 hours to 10 after a new deli-manager started in October 2015.
  • In December 2015, Police removed her from the Prahran store and she was detained after an altercation with the manager.
  • In response to this Woolworths moved her to various stores. However, in October 2016 she was suspended after police were called after an altercation with another employee.
  • Following an investigation, Woolworths met with the employee in December 2016 where they gave her option of resigning or face dismissal.
  • The employee argued that her employment had caused the mental illness, however Woolworths believed it was her “mental state which caused her difficulties at work”
  • Her illness culminated in a 10-day psychiatric admission in hospital in April 2017
  • In June 2017, the Fair Work Commission dismissed an anti-bullying complaint she made against the manager because her job ended in December 2016

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision:

The Fair Work Commission:

  • extended the deadline for the unfair dismissal claim beyond the usual 21 day deadline after her employment ended in December 2016
  • stated usually “the longer the delay in making an unfair dismissal application the more difficult it will generally be to get over the high hurdle of exceptional circumstances”
  • held however in this case, that a combination of factors amounted to exceptional circumstances including: the employee’s “significant” mental illness, her initial lack of knowledge about her rights and her “misapprehension” that the Fair Work Commission would consider the circumstances of her resignation when she lodged a workplace bullying complaint
  • found that her understanding of her rights under the Fair Work Act was “potentially made more limited” by her and her father’s “relatively basic English skills”
  • returned the case to general unfair dismissal list for consideration

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

Yu Duo (Lynda) Lin v Woolworths Limited [2017] FWC 4019 (2 August 2017) [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Dismissed Woolworths Worker Denied Legal Representation

Employment Law – Background

In a Fair Work Commission ruling, a warehouse team leader and Woolworths (MLDC) have both had their requests for legal representation denied, on the basis the unfair dismissal claim was “not complex enough”.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • The team leader was summarily dismissed in May 2017 for apparently engaging in serious safety breaches, such as going underneath a forklifts tyres and failing to take immediate corrective action or follow standard risk assessment procedures for workplace hazards.
  • In applying for unfair dismissal, the employee sought to be represented by a paid agent on the basis he would struggle to argue his own case or cross-examine witnesses.
  • The employee also argued that it was unfair to deny both parties legal representation because MDLC had in-house HR/IR staff with “superior legal and communication skills”. However MDLC disputed this, highlighting that their in house HR were not legally trained or skilled in advocacy
  • MDLC argued that they required legal representation as it “could not properly articulate all the issues”, and that if the team leaders request was granted, it would create an uneven playing field.

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision:

The Fair Work Commission:

  • denied both parties requests for legal representation as it may create “unnecessary formality”
  • accepted that whilst that whilst there were conflicting facts, the case was one which did not “contain a level of complexity beyond that which would ordinarily be found in a routine unfair dismissal matter”
  • emphasised that refusal of both applications was necessary because it “will not lead to a situation of unfairness for either party.” It was stressed that a there would be a “significant imbalance” between the parties if one party was granted legal representation over the other
  • maintained that both parties were well equipped to represent themselves, in that whilst MDLC are not “legally trained and experienced with advocacy, they are experienced in dealing with employee relations matters”. Similarly, the former employee is an “experienced team leader who was responsible for the management of a significantly large number of employees”

The decision is available for you to read through the hyperlink:

Christian Guillemain v Woolworths Limited T/A Melbourne Liquor Distribution Centre [2017] FWC 4236 (15 August 2017) [...]  READ MORE →