High court on employment

[Sunfish]

This high court ruling on trust and confidence in employment contracts has implications in my opinion, especially for the ALAEA.

"The development of the implied term is consistent with the contemporary view of the employment relationship," the court said in its judgment.

"The term which has been stated in most of the authorities is that the employer will not, without reasonable cause, conduct itself in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee."


Commonwealth Bank loses appeal over former manager's redundancy claim - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-07/commonwealth-bank-loses-appeal-over-manager-redundancy-claim/4871960)

[Iron Bar]

Sounds similar to EBA clauses like;

3.1 Mutual trust and integrity.

3.5 Effective consultation, communication and decision making.

3.6 Flexible working conditions that will take into account pilots' needs balanced against the Company's objectives.

Thanks Sunfish

[Romulus]

It is a continuation of previous cases that pretty much originated with Goldman Sachs JB Were v Nikolich and is much, MUCH further reaching than clauses in an EBA Iron Bar.

What the Nikolich ruling recognised (amongst more "traditional" findings such as the failure to provide a safe workplace) was that the employer (and the employee) was bound by those wonderful wordy corporate policies that HR people love to type out and hang by the door. Where Goldman Sachs claimed they were merely aspirational and also that they bound employees but not the company that got rejected outright by the court.

So keep a record of all those policies (human factors being a good one), the lovely happy handouts/flyers that you are given, all the posters that get slotted around the workplace and you have a CHANCE that you can actually have those lovely weasel words enforced. As they should be.

[Wally Mk2]

'Romy' thanks for yr post, that pretty much sums up what I was thinking:ok:
"Feel good", those two words (expressed in diff ways) that adorn almost every work place space/surface that's about in our work place.

Good to see some common sense form our judicial system too (above CBA court ruling), there might be a God after all!


Wmk2

[aroa]

Wouldnt it be lovely if the words in that supreme bureaucrap ..CAsA's so called "Code of Conduct" had some meaning in reality to some of the nasties that work in the xxxxxxxx place.

At least the Aust Public Service Commission Code has criminal provisions for misconduct....not so the CAsA "code" which is a 'get out of jail free' card. :eek:

This has to be changed. No reason why CasAites shouldnt be under the same onus to NOT to follow their own code of misconduct. :mad:

[PLovett]

aroa, its years since I practiced as a lawyer and I am not going to bother trying to find the information now, but, I would have thought the Commonwealth Crimes Act would contain provisions for malfeasance by Commonwealth officers if it was not covered by specific legislation.

In any event, a Commonwealth officers powers are prescribed by the relevant legislation and if a Commonwealth officer attempts to exercise a power that has not been prescribed then by definition it has to be unlawful.

The op is interesting and shows that the court, and more specifically the High Court, will not permit one party to say ".....do as I say but not as I do." However, it is a gut-wrenching experience getting to the High Court and having ones testicles placed in a vice would be a more pleasant experience than having to pay for the chance to run a case in that court.