Rejecting a return-to-work plan may lead to disability discrimination risks, as demonstrated by a recent VCAT decision where an employer was ordered to pay $45,000 for pain and suffering, along with over $190,000 for lost income and entitlements, reinforcing the growing trend of substantial awards for anti-discrimination law breaches.

As mentioned in our previous post, working remotely has become a hot topic, prompting organisations to carefully navigate requests for flexible arrangements. In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) outlined some factors that may justify denying a working from home (WFH) request.

A recent decision by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) highlights the importance of conducting thorough and fair workplace investigations. In Crook v CITIC Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd, the FWC reinstated an employee who had been dismissed for engaging in inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature towards a new female trainee, following a flawed investigation.

Time is running out to review your organisation’s fixed term contract arrangements before legislative amendments come into effect. Book a one-hour session with one of our senior lawyers to consider whether your organisation needs to take any further measures before 6 December.

Working remotely is a hot issue with some employers wanting staff to return to the office. What do employers need to consider?

From 6 December 2023, the use of fixed term contracts will be significantly limited. This change is part of the Secure Jobs, Better Pay amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Read our latest blog on how this may affect you as an employer.