by David Kidd | 13 Nov 2018 | Workers Compensation Law
In the recent case of Schmidt [2018] SAET 182 Ms Schmidt suffered compensable knee injuries. Gastric bypass surgery was considered to be a reasonable medical expense pursuant to s33 of the RTWA given the weight she needed to lose to reduce pressure on her knees. The “gastric bypass surgery was the most effective and sustainable option available out of all the surgical options based on the low percentage risk of failure and side effects”...
by David Kidd | 6 Nov 2018 | Fair Work Law & Annotated Act
Employee Lawfully Dismissed For Failing To Use Biometric Fingerprint Scanner to Record Site Attendance
by David Kidd | 1 Nov 2018 | Uncategorized
My apologies, the web-site has been altered by a hackers. Such to be rectified asap.
by David Kidd | 1 Nov 2018 | Annotated Fair Work Act
Any articles not about Fair Work Law or personal injury law not written by David Kidd. Please accept our sincere apologies if there has been any offence. We will endeavour to delete these corrupt articles.
by David Kidd | 1 Nov 2018 | Annotated Fair Work Act
When demotion can be construed as a dismissal
by David Kidd | 25 Sep 2018 | Annotated Fair Work Act
[2018] FWC 4991 Qld Star v WorkPac P/L (“Ms Star’s dismissal was brought about by the response of WorkPac to the directive from BMA [host employer] to remove her from the Goonyella Riverside Mine site. … Ms Star’s dismissal related to conduct. That conduct was not a valid reason for dismissal. There is no evidence of any other reason – valid or otherwise – for a directive to be issued by BMA requiring the removal of a longstanding labour hire employee from the Goonyella Riverside Mine site. The dismissal was also unfair on the basis that there was no discussion with Ms Star about the decision to remove her from the site and the consequential termination of her employment prior to the termination being effected. The BMA directive was accepted by WorkPac managers as a fait accompli and there was no attempt made to discuss the directive with a relevant manager of BMA or to confirm the reason for the directive or whether the contractual provisions between BMA and WorkPac with respect to unsatisfactory performance by WorkPac personnel applied. The dismissal of Ms Star was harsh because of its consequences for her personal and economic situation and because there was no conduct sufficient to justify her dismissal. The dismissal was also unreasonable because it was decided on inferences which were not reasonably open to WorkPac on the basis of the information it had or which it could reasonably have obtained from BMA” @105-107 – in [2018] FWC 5745 reinstatement to the same position at BMA ordered against WorkPac despite no surety BMA will allow it – no purpose would...
