|
Issue No. 294 | 10 February 2006 |
Total Impact
Interview: Court's in Session Industrial: Whose Choices? Politics: Peter's Principles Environment: TINA or Greener? History: Its Not Just Handshakes and Aprons International: US Locks out Jose' Bove Education: No AWA - No Job Culture: Jesus was a Long-Grass Man Review: Charlie the Serf
Capital Punishment on the Menu Unfair Sackings Face Challenge Holden's Bad Deal for Adelaide STOP PRESS: Guest Worker Plan Goes to Water Taking a Punt on Melbourne Cup Newcastle Rails Against Contracts Free Enterprise Kills Hundreds
The Soapbox The Locker Room Parliament
Belated Merry Whatmas? The Grinch Who Stole Christmas I Think Therefore I Scam A Taxing Answer Leslie John Turner
Labor Council of NSW |
News Unfair Sackings Face Challenge
In a shock ruling, the full IRC bench has found that under Section 137 of the NSW Industrial Relatons Act it can order the reinstatement or re-employment of employees covered by federal awards or agreements.
The full bench ruled it had the power to hear the case of a Carter Holt Harvey employee sacked for refusing to name a fellow worker involved in a safety breach. The man contended that he had reasonable concerns for his, and his family's, safety if he did so. The Commission found it had the power to reinstate the worker under a dispute order but that such a remedy would only be available in cases that involved some "collective element". That part of the ruling ushers trade unions back into centre stage for employees wishing to have some protection against unfair sackings, throwing another spanner into the works of federal legislation that aims to sideline collective organisations. CHH barrister Roderic Crow admitted the decision opened "a new avenue for reinstatement of federal employees". Barrister Adam Searle, who ran the case for Unions NSW, said the ruling could provide state-based unions and their members with an alternative to the "severe emasculation" of the IR system envisaged by WorkChoices. Former NSW Attorney General, Jeff Shaw, said the decision challenged WorkChoices because most workers could demonstrate a "collective element" to their cases if they were supported by their union, or workmates. He said it could leave NSW employees with an alternative avenue for redress, even if constitutional challenges to WorkChoices failed.
|
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online |
|