Search Results

In the bustling world of workplace relations, the Fair Work Commission's April 2024 Bulletin stands out as a beacon of insight and guidance. Here's a more engaging and detailed look into the pivotal updates and landmark decisions that could reshape how we navigate employment and workplace rights in Australia. Fresh Off the Press: Vital Fact Sheets for Modern Workplaces In an era where the dynamics of work and personal life increasingly intertwine, the Commission's latest fact sheets couldn't be timelier. One illuminates the recent amendments to general protections, shining a light on family and domestic violence as a protected attribute, marking a significant stride towards safeguarding employees' rights. Another details new protections for workplace delegates, reinforcing the backbone of employee representation in negotiations and disputes. The Aged Care Industry Decision: A Milestone Moment The aged care sector witnessed a watershed moment with the conclusion of stage 3 of its Work Value Case. This pivotal decision, aimed at revising the Aged Care Award, Nurses Award, and Social, Community, Home Care, and Disability Services Award, could herald a new era of fairness and recognition for those at the heart of our healthcare system. A New Rulebook for Fair Work The introduction of the Fair Work Commission Rules 2024, superseding the 2013 iteration, promises a smoother, more intuitive navigation of the Commission's procedures. This overhaul not only updates the legal framework in line with current legislation but also makes the Commission's workings more accessible to the layperson. Groundbreaking Decisions Unveiled - Navigating the Waters of Unfair Dismissal: One case dissected the intricate details of a small business's decision to terminate employment, setting a precedent on the interpretation of the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. Another delved into the contentious issue of vaccination mandates, offering clarity on employers' boundaries in enforcing health policies. - The Dynamics of Industrial Action: In a case involving the Transport Workers’ Union, the Bulletin outlined the complex dance between bargaining and industrial action, providing a rare glimpse into the delicate balance of power in employer-union negotiations. - Bullying in the Digital Workplace: An anti-bullying application explored the nuances of online interactions in remote work settings, setting a landmark precedent for what constitutes reasonable management action in the digital age. Beyond the Bulletin: A World of Resources The Bulletin doesn't just stop at updates; it opens a portal to a wealth of information, from subscription services offering real-time decision updates to a comprehensive list of websites and legal resources. It's a treasure trove for anyone keen to delve deeper into the labyrinth of workplace relations and legislation. Fair Work Commission Addresses: Your Gateway to Justice With a detailed list of Fair Work Commission offices, the Bulletin ensures that anyone, anywhere in Australia, can find their way to support, advice, or the resolution of disputes. The April 2024 Bulletin: Not Just an Update, but a Lifeline This Bulletin is more than just a monthly update; it's a lifeline for navigating the complex seas of employment law. Whether you're an employee seeking to understand your rights, an employer striving to navigate the legalities of workplace relations, or a legal professional keeping abreast of the latest in labor law, the April 2024 Bulletin offers invaluable insights and resources. For more information or assistance with an employment or human rights matter, call 1800ADVOCATES or gethelp@1800ADVOCATES.au

Australia's approach to long service leave (LSL) involves a mix of state, territory, and federal laws, which can vary significantly in terms of eligibility, accrual rates, and entitlements. Notably, long service leave is primarily governed by state and territory legislation, rather than the Fair Work Act 2009. However, the National Employment Standards (NES) under the Fair Work Act provide a safety net of minimum employment conditions, including some aspects relevant to long service leave for employees who aren't covered by state or territory laws. Here's a breakdown of long service leave entitlements across different Australian jurisdictions: New South Wales - Governing Legislation: Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW) - Accrual Rate: 2 months of leave after 10 years of service, and 1 month for each subsequent 5 years. - Pro-rata Entitlement: After 5 years of service, under certain conditions like redundancy. Victoria - Governing Legislation: Long Service Leave Act 2018 (VIC) - Accrual Rate: Entitlement is 1 week of leave for every 60 weeks worked (approximately 8.67 weeks for 10 years). - Pro-rata Entitlement: After 7 years of service, regardless of the reason for termination. Queensland - Governing Legislation: Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD) - Accrual Rate: 8.6667 weeks of leave after 10 years of service, and 4.3333 weeks for each subsequent 5 years. - Pro-rata Entitlement: Generally available after 7 years of service, under certain conditions. Western Australia - Governing Legislation: Long Service Leave Act 1958 (WA) - Accrual Rate: 8.6667 weeks after 10 years, and 4.3333 weeks for each subsequent 5 years of service. - Pro-rata Entitlement: After 7 years of continuous service, under certain conditions. South Australia - Governing Legislation: Long Service Leave Act 1987 (SA) - Accrual Rate: 13 weeks for 10 years of service, with pro-rata after 7 years. - Pro-rata Entitlement: Available after 7 years of continuous service. Tasmania - Governing Legislation: Long Service Leave Act 1976 (TAS) - Accrual Rate: The entitlement is 8.67 weeks after 10 years of service. - Pro-rata Entitlement: Available after 10 years, with some exceptions allowing for earlier entitlements. Australian Capital Territory - Governing Legislation: Long Service Leave Act 1976 (ACT) - Accrual Rate: 6.0667 weeks for the first 10 years and 4.3333 weeks for each subsequent 5 years. - Pro-rata Entitlement: After 7 years of continuous service, in certain circumstances. Northern Territory - Governing Legislation: Long Service Leave Act 1981 (NT) - Accrual Rate: 13 weeks for the first 10 years of service, with additional entitlements accruing thereafter. - Pro-rata Entitlement: Available after 7 years of continuous service, under specific conditions. Fair Work Act 2009 While the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) sets the National Employment Standards (NES), it references long service leave only to the extent that it preserves existing state and territory entitlements and clarifies that an employee's entitlement under those laws is not affected by the NES. The Fair Work Ombudsman provides guidance on long service leave based on state and territory laws, as the specifics of long service leave entitlements are determined by the local legislation rather than by the Fair Work Act itself. For detailed provisions, including the conditions under which pro-rata long service leave may be paid and the specific rates of accrual, it is necessary to refer directly to the legislation of the relevant state or territory. Please remember, the above information serves as a general guide, and for specific cases or detailed queries, consulting the legislation directly or seeking legal advice is recommended.

In a pivotal High Court decision, Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King ([2024] HCA 8), the conversation about the principle of legality illuminated its crucial role in statutory interpretation, especially within the context of the Fair Work Act. This principle, deeply embedded in the judiciary's approach to legislation, insists on a clear and unmistakable intention from Parliament before it is concluded that any legislation seeks to override established common law rights, privileges, or liberties. With Justices Gageler, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, and Jagot dissecting this principle, its relevance to the workplace and employment law, particularly under the Fair Work Act, becomes increasingly apparent. They underscored the principle's inherent flexibility, allowing its application to be finely tuned to the specifics of each case. This is particularly significant in the realm of employment law, where the rights and freedoms at stake are not only fundamental but integral to the fair treatment and protection of workers. The discussion emphasized that the more critical the right or the more substantial the potential infringement on these rights, the more explicit Parliament must be in its legislative intent. However, it was also made clear that the principle of legality is, at its core, a tool for interpretation focused on discerning Parliamentary intent. Its applicability could be limited, especially where legislation, including sections of the Fair Work Act, explicitly aims to curtail or specify certain rights, freedoms, or immunities. This judicial exposition draws upon a rich legal heritage, with precedents like Potter v Minahan (1908) providing foundational support. These cases have shaped the principle's application, ensuring a balanced approach that protects individuals' rights while allowing for legislative action in areas like employment law. The insights from Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King resonate deeply with the application of the Fair Work Act, offering a nuanced perspective on how courts navigate the complex interplay between legislative intent and the protection of common law rights within the workplace. This decision reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms, underscoring the need for clear legislative intention when such rights are to be adjusted or clarified, ensuring the Fair Work Act continues to operate as intended, within the bounds of fairness and legality.

In the last financial year, Australia saw a significant number of unfair dismissal cases, reflecting the challenging circumstances many workers find themselves in. Facing unfair dismissal is a profound setback, leaving individuals vulnerable and in search of justice. With the complexity of employment disputes, particularly unfair dismissal, finding expert guidance is crucial. It's here that 1800ADVOCATES™ and 1800NOWINNOFEE™ step in, uniting forces to champion the rights of those subjected to unfair dismissal. The Landscape of Unfair Dismissal The recent statistics are telling: the last financial year witnessed thousands of unfair dismissal claims lodged across Australia. Remarkably, 80 to 90% of these cases were settled at the first conciliation conference when the workers were represented by professional advocates. This highlights the significant impact that expert representation can have on the outcome of unfair dismissal claims. Free Consultation: Evaluate Your Unfair Dismissal Case Understanding your rights and the best course of action in the wake of an unfair dismissal is the first step towards seeking redress. 1800ADVOCATES™ and 1800NOWINNOFEE™ offer a free initial consultation for anyone facing unfair dismissal. This consultation, supported by our no win no fee service, is essential for evaluating your unfair dismissal case, providing clarity on your position and the best path forward with the assurance of our no win no fee promise. Expert Advocacy for Your Unfair Dismissal Claim Navigating through an unfair dismissal claim requires a nuanced understanding of employment law and the procedures of the Fair Work Commission. Our team, dedicated to advocating for every individual facing unfair dismissal, offers comprehensive support through each step of the claim process. We aim to rectify the injustice of your unfair dismissal, all within our no win no fee framework. Why Choose Us for Your Unfair Dismissal Claim - Proven Expertise: Our track record in successfully handling unfair dismissal cases underscores our commitment and expertise, all offered on a no win no fee basis. - Personalised Support: Recognising the unique nature of each unfair dismissal case, we provide personalised advice and advocacy, backed by our no win no fee guarantee. - Commitment to Justice: Our no win no fee commitment ensures accessible, comprehensive support for all victims of unfair dismissal, reflecting our unwavering dedication to justice. Act Promptly to Challenge Your Unfair Dismissal Time is of the essence when it comes to addressing an unfair dismissal. With strict deadlines enforced by the Fair Work Commission, immediate action is crucial. Contacting 1800ADVOCATES™ and 1800NOWINNOFEE™ for your free, no win no fee consultation is the pivotal first step in challenging your unfair dismissal and reclaiming your professional rights. Conclusion The last financial year's statistics on unfair dismissal in Australia underscore the critical role of professional advocacy. With the majority of cases settled at the first conciliation conference with professional representation, the importance of seeking expert assistance cannot be overstated. 1800ADVOCATES™ and 1800NOWINNOFEE™ stand ready to support you with our no win no fee service, ensuring access to justice for those unfairly dismissed. Reach out today and begin your journey towards a fair resolution, backed by our expertise and no win no fee commitment. Call 1800NOWINNOFEE or 1800ADVOCATES 24/7 for a FREE consultation.

We are so very pleased to offer a very welcome decision of the Fair Work Commission in a matter in which 1800ADVOCATES Employment and Human Rights Chief Advocate, Brian AJ Newman appeared on behalf of the applicant. In the case of Jessica Tidmarsh v Aspire 2 Life Pty Ltd, presided over by Deputy President Roberts, the crux of the dispute was whether Tidmarsh, who served as a support worker for Aspire 2 Life, was an employee or an independent contractor. This distinction was crucial for determining if she was entitled to protections under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning wrongful dismissal. Tidmarsh argued for employee status, while Aspire 2 Life maintained she was an independent contractor. The case hinged on interpreting the contractual agreement between Tidmarsh and Aspire 2 Life, alongside the nature of the work performed and the degree of control and independence Tidmarsh had over her work. After long deliberation, Deputy President Roberts said at paragraph 52-53. "[52] The determination as to whether a person is an employee or independent contractor is a question of law. Having taken into account the various rights and obligations that the parties created for themselves by their contractual arrangements, I am of the view that the relationship between the Applicant and Respondent in this case was one of employee and employer. [53] The Respondent’s objection is dismissed. The matter will be relisted for conference on a date to be determined." This case illustrates the nuanced considerations in classifying employment relationships within Australian labour law, particularly in sectors like aged care, where service provision models are evolving. Our client showed extraordinary steel by sticking to her guns and seeing it through, and Jessica is a shining example of what can be achieved if you take the fight up when you know you're right. If you need help with a similar matter, call 1800 238 622, email gethelp@1800ADVOCATES.au or complete the Priority Intake Form on our website at www.1800ADVOCATES.au We are now reviewing what could be a significant wage claim as a follow-up case due to the decision. You can read the entire decision on the Fair Work website.

In the realm of employment and human rights advocacy, few issues resonate as strongly as unfair dismissal cases. An unfair dismissal, as defined under the Fair Work Act, encompasses various factors, including harshness, unfair treatment, and unjust findings against the employee. In this blog post, we delve into the profound impact of unfair dismissal on individuals, shedding light on the critical aspects of these cases by the Fair Work Act. Understanding the Fair Work Act To comprehensively discuss the ramifications of unfair dismissal, it is imperative to first grasp the framework provided by the Fair Work Act. This legislation serves as a cornerstone in safeguarding the rights of employees against unjust terminations. The Harsh Reality of Unfair Dismissal An unfair dismissal often leaves an indelible mark on the lives of affected individuals. The term "unfair dismissal" vividly encapsulates the harshness that many employees face when they are abruptly separated from their source of livelihood. Unfair Treatment: A Pervasive Issue Within the context of unfair dismissal, the term "unfair treatment" frequently arises. Employees who find themselves in such unfortunate circumstances often recount stories of mistreatment, discrimination, and prejudice that preceded their termination. Unjust Findings: A Grave Injustice A core component of the Fair Work Act is ensuring that the findings against an employee are just and reasonable. Yet, in many unfair dismissal cases, the term "unfair dismissal" echoes as a stark reminder of the injustices meted out to employees who have been wronged. The Emotional Toll The emotional toll of an unfair dismissal cannot be overstated. Those who experience this ordeal often grapple with feelings of anger, frustration, and helplessness. The term "unfair dismissal" underscores the gravity of the situation. Financial Instability One of the most pressing consequences of unfair dismissal is the financial instability it imposes on individuals and their families. With their livelihoods abruptly taken away, the term "unfair dismissal" becomes synonymous with economic uncertainty. Career Setbacks The aftermath of an unfair dismissal often includes a substantial setback in one's career. The term "unfair dismissal" reverberates as a stark reminder of the hurdles individuals must overcome to rebuild their professional lives. Legal Recourse Under the Fair Work Act, individuals have the right to seek recourse for an unfair dismissal. Utilizing the mechanisms provided by the legislation is crucial for those who wish to challenge the injustice encapsulated by the term "unfair dismissal." The Importance of Advocacy Employment and human rights advocates play a pivotal role in supporting individuals who have experienced an unfair dismissal. Their expertise and guidance can make all the difference in navigating the complex terrain of the Fair Work Act. The Need for Reform As the term "unfair dismissal" continues to haunt the lives of many, there is an ongoing need for reform to enhance the protection of employee rights and promote fairness within the workplace. Conclusion In conclusion, an unfair dismissal is a distressing experience that can have far-reaching consequences for individuals. The Fair Work Act stands as a beacon of hope for those who have been subjected to harshness, unfair treatment, and unjust findings. Understanding and advocating for the rights enshrined in this legislation is paramount in addressing the issue of unfair dismissal and ensuring that the term "unfair dismissal" becomes a rare occurrence in the Australian workplace. We specialise in assisting people navigate this process and we play hard but fair to get you a just outcome. Call 1800 238 622 or email gethelp@1800ADVOCATES.au for a FREE consultation.

In the context of contract law, particularly as it relates to employment in Australia, the concept of lost opportunity refers to the potential earnings or benefits an employee misses out on due to actions taken by the employer that are not in line with the agreed terms of employment or relevant legal standards. Lost opportunity For a casual employee who is rostered for eight hours but then sent home after three hours, the lost opportunity primarily consists of the wages for the five hours they were scheduled to work but did not due to being sent home early. The capacity of a casual employee to appeal through the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for unpaid wages or to raise a dispute with the employer depends on several factors, including the terms of their employment contract and the applicable industrial instruments (e.g., awards or enterprise agreements) governing their role. National Employment Standards The National Employment Standards (NES) and the Fair Work Act 2009 provide a framework for the rights and obligations of both employers and employees, including casual workers. If a casual employee believes they have been unfairly deprived of wages for hours they were rostered to work, they may have grounds to raise a dispute. The first step typically involves addressing the issue directly with the employer, following any internal dispute resolution procedures outlined in their employment contract or the applicable award or agreement. If the matter is not resolved satisfactorily at this level, the employee may then consider escalating the dispute to the FWC. The FWC offers a range of services to assist with resolving workplace disputes, including mediation and conciliation. If a dispute cannot be resolved through these means, the FWC may conduct a hearing to make a determination. It is important for employees to be aware of the time frames within which disputes must be lodged with the FWC, as failing to act within these time frames can limit their options for seeking redress. It's also worth noting that under some awards or agreements, there may be specific provisions regarding minimum shift lengths or compensation for being sent home early, which could further support the employee's claim. Employees should review the terms of their employment contract and the relevant award or enterprise agreement to understand their rights and obligations in such situations. Representation While the FWC can assist with disputes related to the Fair Work Act 2009, it's crucial to note that seeking advice or guidance from a professional with expertise in employment law can provide valuable insights tailored to the specific circumstances of the case.

Welcome back to another 1800ADVOCATES blog, where we discuss pressing issues related to employment and human rights in Australia. In today's blog post, we delve into a crucial topic that affects countless individuals across the country – the need to grant complainants the choice of jurisdiction for their general protections matters. We would like you to join us in advocating for this essential change in the legal process to empower individuals, reduce costs, and streamline dispute resolution. The Challenge Faced by Complainants General protections matters, encompassing issues such as unfair dismissals and workplace discrimination, have become increasingly prevalent in the Australian employment landscape. However, navigating the current legal system can be fraught with challenges for complainants: 1. Delays: The Federal Circuit Court, while essential, often grapples with a backlog of cases, leading to significant delays in resolving disputes. Complainants may find themselves waiting for months, or even years, for their matters to be heard, causing undue stress and financial strain. 2. Costs: Engaging legal representation in the Federal Circuit Court can be financially burdensome for many complainants. Legal fees can quickly escalate, exacerbating the stress of an already challenging situation. 3. Efficiency: In contrast, the Fair Work Commission offers a more cost-effective and efficient alternative. Complainants have the option to represent themselves or seek assistance from professional advocates, providing a streamlined and accessible process. Empowering Complainants with Choice At 1800ADVOCATES, we believe that empowering complainants with the choice of jurisdiction for their general protections matters is not only a just course but also a practical solution to address these challenges. We propose an amendment to the Fair Work Act that grants complainants the freedom to choose where their matters are heard, be it the Fair Work Commission or the Federal Circuit Court. This change offers numerous benefits: 1. Reduced Financial Burden: Complainants can opt for the Fair Work Commission, where they have the freedom to represent themselves or seek assistance from a professional advocate, significantly reducing the financial burden. 2. Faster Resolution: Matters heard in the Fair Work Commission tend to be resolved more efficiently, sparing complainants from extended periods of uncertainty and stress. 3. Accessible Justice: Providing complainants with a choice in jurisdiction aligns with our commitment to accessible justice, ensuring that everyone has a fair opportunity to be heard. How You Can Support the Cause We invite all Australians who share our commitment to fairness, efficiency, and accessible justice to support this important cause. Here's how you can make a difference: 1. Contact Your Local MP: Reach out to your local Member of Parliament and express your support for amending the Fair Work Act to grant complainants the choice of jurisdiction. 2. Raise Awareness: Share this message on social media, among your friends, family, and colleagues, to create awareness about the issue and garner more support. 3. Join Advocacy Groups: Consider joining or supporting advocacy groups, like 1800ADVOCATES, that are actively working towards this change in legislation. Conclusion It is our collective responsibility to address the challenges faced by complainants in general protections matters. Empowering individuals with the choice of jurisdiction not only reduces costs and delays but also upholds the principles of accessible justice. By rallying support and advocating for this change, we can ensure that all Australians have a fair and efficient process when addressing workplace disputes. Together, we can make a difference and create a more equitable employment landscape.

The Online Safety Act 2021 of Australia, managed by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, is a critical legal framework for safeguarding individuals against online harassment and abuse, including cyberbullying. This Act underscores the right to a safe digital environment and empowers people to take action against online misconduct. For a comprehensive understanding, you can refer to the legislation on the Federal Register of Legislation's website. For more details, please visit the [Federal Register of Legislation](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest)

In the realm of employment law, particularly in Australia, distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor is a critical issue. This distinction is especially relevant in the context of sham contracting, a deceptive practice where employees are incorrectly classified as independent contractors. Sham contracting undermines employee rights and benefits and is explicitly prohibited under Australian law, notably in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Fair Work Ombudsman's Benchbook provides a comprehensive comparison of key characteristics to differentiate between an employee and an independent contractor. This comparison is crucial in identifying and preventing sham contracting. 1. Control Over Work: - Employee: The employer wields significant control over the manner in which work is performed, including the location and hours of work. This aspect is a traditional hallmark of an employment relationship. In cases such as Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44, the High Court of Australia emphasised the importance of control in distinguishing between an employee and a contractor. - Independent Contractor: Here, the worker has autonomy over how the work is performed, signifying a contractor relationship. The case of On Call Interpreters and Translators Agency Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2011] FCA 366 highlighted the significance of this autonomy. 2. Exclusivity of Work: - Employee: Generally engaged exclusively by one employer. This exclusivity is often indicative of an employment relationship. - Independent Contractor: Typically free to offer services to multiple clients, reflecting the nature of a genuine independent contracting arrangement. 3. Advertising of Services: - Employee: The employer advertises the goods or services, and the employee is a representative of the employer's business. - Independent Contractor: Independently advertises their services, often maintaining a separate business identity. This factor was underscored in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV v Bathurst Regional Council [2014] FCAFC 65. 4. Provision of Tools or Equipment: - Employee: The employer usually provides significant tools or equipment necessary for the job. - Independent Contractor: The contractor is typically responsible for supplying and maintaining their tools or equipment, a key factor in Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council [2002] NSWCA 5. These factors, as outlined in the Benchbook, are not applied in isolation but are considered collectively to ascertain the nature of the working relationship. It is essential to note that this guidance stems from legal precedent and serves as a guideline rather than a strict rule, acknowledging that each employment situation may present unique circumstances. Sham contracting remains a critical concern in Australian employment law. The Fair Work Act 2009 offers protections against such practices, specifically under sections like 357, which prohibits misrepresenting employment relationships as independent contracting. Cases like Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 37 and Fair Work Ombudsman v AJR Nominees Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 2147 serve as stark reminders of the legal implications of sham contracting. In conclusion, understanding the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor is vital in combating sham contracting.

In Australia, the pursuits of human rights advocates and employment advocates are directed towards fostering justice, equality, and the safeguarding of rights. While their focal areas may differ, both play vital roles in nurturing a fair and just society. Here's a comprehensive delineation of the two roles: 1. Human Rights Advocacy: - Education and Awareness: Engaging in educational initiatives to raise awareness among the public and institutions about human rights issues, principles, and legal frameworks, including hosting events, creating resources, and media engagement. - Policy Advocacy: Contributing to policy and legislative reforms to advance human rights by liaising with government bodies, offering recommendations on proposed laws, and participating in parliamentary inquiries. - Research: Conducting investigations on individual rights abuses cases as well as broader societal or systemic human rights issues. - Supporting Affected Individuals and Communities: Providing support to those whose rights have been violated by offering advice, connecting them to necessary resources, or representing their interests in public discussions. - Collaboration: Collaborating with other organisations, community groups, and legal bodies to build a more robust human rights movement within Australia. - Monitoring and Reporting: Monitoring and reporting on human rights situations locally and globally, offering insightful updates, analyses, and recommendations. - Legal Framework Navigation: Operating within Australia's legal frameworks, adhering to domestic laws and international human rights standards while advocating for reform. 2. Employment Advocacy: - Representation: Employment advocates represent the interests of employees, unions, or employers in matters pertaining to employment relations, including negotiations over wages, employment conditions, and workplace safety. - Negotiation and Mediation: Engaging in negotiations and mediations to resolve disputes and establish fair employment conditions, either on an individual basis or collectively. - Education: Conducting educational activities to inform workers, employers, and the public about employment relations laws, rights, and responsibilities. - Policy Advocacy: Working towards policy and legislative reforms to better reflect the rights and interests of workers and employers. - Research: Undertaking research on employment relations issues, trends, and legal frameworks to form evidence-based arguments and strategies. - Legal Compliance and General Information: Ensuring legal compliance in employment practices and providing general information regarding industrial laws and regulations, while adhering to the specified directive of not providing legal advice. - Workplace Investigations: Being involved in workplace investigations to address complaints and ensure adherence to employment laws and standards. Through their dedicated efforts within their respective domains, human rights advocates and employment advocates significantly contribute to the betterment of societal norms and legal frameworks in Australia, working towards creating a more equitable and just society.

Unfair dismissal arises when an employee is let go from their position without just cause or without adherence to the correct protocol. This principle is upheld in numerous legal systems to shield workers from unwarranted or inequitable job terminations. Essential elements of unfair dismissal are: 1. Grounds for Dismissal: A termination is considered just if there's a genuine reason tied to the employee's abilities or behavior or due to the company's operational needs. Persistent underperformance, behavioral issues, or job cuts are often seen as legitimate grounds for dismissal. 2. Adherence to Protocol: Even with a genuine reason, the employer is obligated to ensure a just process when letting an employee go. Typically, this involves notifying the employee about the reasons behind their termination, allowing them a chance to present their side, and weighing their defense. 3. Notification Duration: Typically, workers have the right to either a notice duration or a monetary settlement in place of this notice, except in cases of grave misconduct. 4. Prohibited Grounds: Letting an employee go based on prejudiced factors (like ethnicity, gender, age, or disability), retaliating for claiming a worker's right (such as availing maternity benefits or highlighting workplace issues), or on petty grounds is usually seen as unjust. 5. Legal Recourse: An employee deemed to have faced unfair dismissal could be eligible for legal remedies, which might comprise monetary compensation, reappointment to their position, or both. It's pivotal to note that the specifics of unfair dismissal differ across regions and countries. Understanding the intricacies of unfair dismissal in a specific locale requires a thorough exploration of its labor laws. If you need assistance or advice about your specific circumstances, concerning unfair, this metal call 1800238622 for a free consultation.