Can an employee be dismissed based on their keyboard activity?
Many employers question how they can appropriately manage the productivity of employees who are working from home.
Many employers question how they can appropriately manage the productivity of employees who are working from home.
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has recently handed down a decision that gives some clarification on the issue of constructive dismissal.
When all is said and done, an employer may have a valid reason for sacking an employee, but if the sacking is unfair, the employer
In Dyson v Centennial Myuna Pty Ltd (2020) the Fair Work Commission (‘the Commission’) reinstated a senior Undermanager after he was terminated for breaches of its workplace
Employment Law Folklore No. 1 From time to time an employer has an employee who fails to attend work for one or more days, with
Terminating an employee is a confronting experience. Surely, in the digital age where text, email and instant messaging is commonplace, reducing the personal element of
Stephen Booth Recent cases involving Jack de Belin (St. George Dragons, NRL) and Israel Folau (Waratahs, Rugby Australia) have cast some interesting light on some
Calling a meeting to inform an employee that their employment is being terminated is uncomfortable, so many employers are opting to use digital tools to communicate their decision instead. Unfair dismissal and technology have a growing correlation. Here are some implications to be aware of.
When an employee notifies his / her employer that they wish to terminate their employment, their employment will automatically terminate when the relevant notice period expires. What happens when an employee wishes to withdraw their resignation?
To successfully defend an unfair dismissal claim, an employer must be able to satisfy the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
The tension between traditional employment law frameworks and the gig economy has come to the fore once again after the Fair Work Commission holds that an Uber driver is not an employee.
© 2024 Coleman Greig Lawyers | Sitemap | Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. ABN 73 125 176 230
Cookie | Duration | Description |
---|---|---|
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |