“If I’d had a safe system of work, I wouldn’t be injured.” Which case won?
A case in 2019 examined the question of whether a race club had provided one of its casual employees with a safe system of work.
Because of the big crowd of racegoers, and copious supplies of food and drink (which could be brought in or purchased), more than a hundred 240-litre wheelie bins were placed at various locations around the racecourse.
The bins had soft plastic bin liners placed in them and were positioned in groups at various locations. Some were on paved areas, but others on grass.
On one of these grassed areas (with a moderate but unquantified slope) was a group of six bins. Despite the worker’s emphatic evidence to the contrary, the trial judge accepted that the bins were placed back-to-back, with their handles touching.
About twenty metres away from these bins was a garbage skip, where full bin liners were dumped. It was accepted that the weight of a full bin liner could vary considerably, depending on the mix of food waste and lightweight items, such as empty cardboard cups and drink cans.
Changes to labour hire laws for “same work same pay”
New laws preventing and addressing sexual harassment in Australian workplaces
Unfair contract laws now apply to expanded category of small business
Negligent bosses in NSW to face 20 years in jail for industrial manslaughter
Qantas acted illegally in sacking 1700 ground crew and outsourcing their jobs
Can the boss force you to return to the office?
Warning – directors duties still apply when touting for business overseas
Insider trading might be tempting, but don’t risk it
Tougher penalties for employers to protect foreign workers
Unfair contract penalties increased to protect consumers and small businesses
Shelf life of zombie agreements set to expire shortly
Workplace surveillance and employee monitoring on the rise
Sex worker claims unfair dismissal by brothel – but was she an employee? Which case won?
A sex worker commenced working at a Melbourne brothel in August 2019. Her work arrangement was set out in an agency agreement, which specified that she was not a partner, a joint venturer or an employee of the brothel.
The agreement further stated that the sex worker was free to refuse any client booking on any grounds, and that the brothel did not direct or control sex workers “in the nature or conduct of delivering their personal services”.
While the brothel was not able to produce a copy of the agency agreement that it claimed the sex worker had signed, the sex worker conceded that she had signed a contract during her initial interview at the brothel, although she too was unable to produce a copy of that document.
Businesses warned against “greenwashing”
Is a subcontractor responsible for a safety breach on a construction site? Which case won?
AC was the principal contractor for the construction of fifty-eight townhouses on the outskirts of Sydney.
The townhouses were to be clustered across nine buildings, referred to as “stacks”.
AC engaged a panel company to supply and install panels that would form the walls of the stacks.
Each panel consisted of two large compressed cement sheets, separated from each other by short steel spacers.
The panels were to be placed vertically, resting on their edges, and then the spaces between the pairs of fibro cement sheets were to be filled by pouring concrete into the voids.
The panels were supplied in bundles, each consisting of several panels laid on top of each other.
Each bundle was secured by being wrapped in heavy plastic sheets.