Latest news with #unfairdismissal
Daily Mail
12 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Teacher Michelle Martin sues Cairns Rudolf Steiner School over right to disconnect laws
A former primary school teacher has claimed she was unfairly sacked for allegedly raising complaints with her employer and refusing to respond outside working hours. Michelle Martin, who was a Class 1 teacher at Cairns Rudolf Steiner School in Kuranda State Forest, Queensland, filed a statement of claim in federal court in May. In it, she accused the independent school, which is also run under the name Cairns Hinterland Steiner, of unfair dismissal and has sought a payout of $780,000. Ms Martin alleged she was targeted after complaining about child safety and a person reviewing the school. She also said they insisted on contacting her during the holiday period, when she was exercising her 'right to disconnect'. Under laws launched by the Albanese government in August 2024, employees have the right to refuse employer or third-party contact outside working hours. By citing the law in her statement, Ms Martin's case is understood to be a first for Australia in referencing the new workplace rules. 'Teaching is the only profession that creates all others,' Ms Martin's legal representative Tom O'Donnell, from O'Donnell Legal, told Daily Mail Australia. 'We understand this case may help clarify how the Right to Disconnect provisions operate in practice - not just for teachers, but for all Australian workers.' In March, the Fair Work Commission heard that Ms Martin made two complaints to the school between January and March last year. She then took leave due to stress and a medical report informed the school on August 27 that discussing the prospect of not returning to work could make exacerbate it. The commission also heard that discussing potential legal consequences, negative feedback or warnings could also negatively impact her. On September 12, despite recommendations and during school holiday, the school emailed Ms Martin a letter setting out six allegations of 'management matters'. The letter told her to respond in writing by close of business in eight days, still during the holiday period. Ms Martin responded through her solicitor, pointing out that it was the school holidays and that she was receiving treatment for a medical condition. 'The response referred to the right to disconnect... and proposed a revised date,' the commission heard, but the school maintained Ms Martin was not on holiday. On October 8, Ms Martin was dismissed, 'purportedly based on (her) failure to respond to the allegations,' the commission heard. The school refuted allegations it had breached workplace rights or contraventions during the commission's hearing. Daily Mail Australia has contacted it for comment. In Ms Martin's statement of claim, filed on May 2, she argued she lost out on thousands of dollars. She claimed she would have stayed on in the role for six years, which meant she lost $730,000 in income. She also requested $50,000 for hurt and humiliation. Her claim said the refusal to extend the deadline to respond, and the decision to sack her, 'directly or indirectly prevented the applicant from exercising her right to disconnect'. 'For Ms Martin and her family, these proceedings represent her legal right to seek redress following the termination of her employment as a teacher,' Mr O'Donnell said. With legal proceedings underway, Mr O'Donnell said it would be inappropriate to comment on specific details of the case. According to the new workplace laws, a worker can legally ignore calls and texts from their boss out of hours. But it doesn't apply to emergencies, and working out what's reasonable includes the reason for making contact, how disruptive it is, the nature of someone's job and their personal circumstances including caring responsibilities.
ABC News
19 hours ago
- Business
- ABC News
This Filipino woman struck a blow against Australian businesses 'exploiting' offshore workers
A woman in the Philippines who scored a surprise win against an Australian business in the Fair Work Commission has blazed a trail for potential legal claims — including class actions — by offshore workers, lawyers say. Joanna Pascua, who was sacked last year by a Brisbane credit repair outfit for whom she was doing paralegal work from her home in Manila, drew on her experience advocating for clients in Australia to file an unfair dismissal claim. She won the right to Australian workplace protections in a watershed case that raises questions about the burgeoning practice of businesses hiring overseas workers to sidestep local wage costs and obligations. "I've never heard of something like this, it was just really a long shot for me," Ms Pascua said. Ms Pascua said she celebrated with her family over burritos and received a flurry of congratulatory messages from other Filipinos working for companies in Australia and New Zealand. "I can say it is monumental because Australia has just established its leadership in [an international] labour workforce," she said. Ms Pascua's contract with Doessel Group, in Brisbane's north, required her to investigate credit claims and liaise with Australian banks and credit agencies on behalf of clients of a related business, My CRA Lawyers. Working from home with a phone and a computer, she was paid $18 (about 640 Philippine pesos) an hour. According to a legal filing for Ms Pascua in the Fair Work Commission, she was likely among "tens of thousands" of people hired by Australian companies as "offshore contractors" when many of them were in fact employees left without protections either in Australia or their home countries. "Ms Pascua's case demonstrates how offshore contracting exploits a grey area of the law to the short-term economic benefit of Australian businesses, such as Doessel, but to the detriment of the labourers involved," the submission said. "Offshore contractors are performing precarious and informal jobs without social protection, for the immediate commercial gain of the businesses that acquire their labour." This "grey market" is associated with small Australian businesses that, unlike large corporations, cannot afford to set up overseas subsidiaries that employ staff who are protected by industrial laws in those countries. In February last year, Doessel Group sacked Ms Pascua after accusing her of unlawfully copying company and client information to her personal drive — allegations she denied. "I couldn't believe it. This couldn't be happening. This is not real. There's no basis for it," she said. "Something in me was nagging that I was wronged, and I can't make a company listen to Philippine law because of how it was set up." Ms Pascua said her work "happily defending consumers" had shown her that "Australian law is very considerate on the actual circumstances of the consumer or the individual [and disputes] will get sorted out in a very fair way". She decided to file for unfair dismissal but had to overcome a key hurdle as a "virtual worker" living a 5,800-kilometre plane flight away. "When I first submitted my complaint, I was told that you can't file an unfair dismissal because you're not even resident in Australia," Ms Pascua said. "But it doesn't say in the [Fair Work Act that] you have to be physically in Australia. "I'm actually an employee … I do everything I'm expected to do in a daily grind, 8:30 to five o'clock Australian, Queensland time, I have to be there, have to be on time and all that." Doessel Group argued she was an "independent contractor" outside Australia's jurisdiction. But last September, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Tony Slevin found that this "belied that actual nature of the contract [and] Ms Pascua was not conducting her own business". He ruled that Ms Pascua was an employee of an Australian company, and entitled to national minimum work standards, which include a wage of at least $24.87 an hour. Doessel Group tried to appeal the ruling but it was upheld by the full bench of the commission in February. This has cleared the way for Ms Pascua to continue her unfair dismissal claim, and to pursue unpaid wages through the Fair Work Ombudsman. "Will I be contesting unfair dismissal? No, probably not," Doessel Group founder Graham Doessel told the ABC. "Don't know yet. I haven't made a commercial decision. And have I employed somebody to replace her from the Philippines? Absolutely not. "In my particular case, once bitten, twice shy." Mr Doessel said that Ms Pascua had been "paid more than a senior solicitor, more than an airline pilot" in the Philippines. Mr Doessel said the ruling would likely harm thousands of small businesses in the same boat as his, including "accountants, solicitors, brokers, finance companies". Brisbane lawyer Alex Moriarty, who took on Ms Pascua's case late last year, told the ABC it put companies "on notice that employing offshore workers is not an easy loophole for avoiding Australia's workplace protections". "Virtual and remote workers … can easily be deemed to be, in effect, Australian employees, with all the same rights under our Fair Work Act, including its minimum wage, gender pay equity, unfair dismissal and anti-bulling and anti-discrimination protections," he said. Sydney-based employment lawyer Sarah Capello said she agreed these legal claims could follow, but barriers would include access to litigation funds for what tended not to be "big money cases". "There might be a couple of instances where it does occur but I don't think it's going to be as often as we might think," Ms Capello said. "I might be wrong … but I would be really surprised if this was the case because of the reliance in the Philippines of the [remote] work coming back to Australia." Ms Pascua said remote jobs had meant new opportunities for working people in the Philippines, especially university-educated women who had raised their families and wanted to make a fresh contribution. But after her sacking, she felt a need to show her adult children that she could "practise what I preached to them growing up", including to her daughter, a law student who she hoped would one day become a judge. "Do I want them to feel that it's OK to feel this way and not do anything about it?" Ms Pascua said.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- General
- RNZ News
Oranga Tamariki youth worker loses appeal, dismissal for excessive force upheld
By Shannon Pitman, Open Justice reporter of Youth residence Korowai Manaaki. Photo: RNZ/Marika Khabazi A youth worker who was initially awarded nearly $30,000 for unfair dismissal after pushing a teenager who called her a derogatory name has now lost her case on appeal. The Employment Court has ruled that her dismissal was justified, determining she used excessive force and should receive no compensation as a result. Ioana Hill worked at the Oranga Tamariki youth residence, Korowai Manaaki, in South Auckland between 2017 and 2021. In March 2021, Hill was in the Nikau unit alongside four male staff members and six male rangatahi. A disagreement occurred between Hill and one of the teenagers over a missing pen and the boy was told to sit at the non-participation table (NPT). According to a recently released decision, he muttered, "F***** s***" as he walked towards the table, which caused Hill to feel embarrassed, humiliated and degraded in a room full of boys. She approached the teen who continued to aggressively repeat, "You f***** s***, you're a s***, you're a s***". Fearing for her safety, she used a technique called the train stop and pushed the boy backwards. He fell onto a chair. The boy went to get up again and Hill performed a second train stop but reported her hands missed his chest and moved towards his collarbone, pushing him back further than she anticipated. Hill left the unit upset, reported the incident to a team leader and admitted she had "f***** up". Oranga Tamariki conducted a review and dismissed her after viewing CCTV that showed her hand around his neck in a back-and-forth choking motion. The letter informing her of dismissal for serious misconduct said she had initiated the altercation when there had been no lawful ground to use force. Hill took her dismissal to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) in 2024. It found she was unjustifiably dismissed and awarded her $29,000. Oranga Tamariki appealed the ERA decision recently, taking Hill to the Employment Court. Much of the ERA decision found Hill's actions were warranted as she was acting in self-defence, but Judge Merepaia King disagreed. "The purpose of a youth justice residence is to provide a safe environment and high standard of personalised care for rangatahi in Oranga Tamariki's care," she said. "Oranga Tamariki care for some of the most complex and challenging rangatahi in New Zealand. These rangatahi come from backgrounds of criminal offending, mental health or addiction issues and physical, sexual and emotional trauma. "There is an inherent power imbalance between staff and rangatahi. This is due to the legitimate and authorised power and control that Oranga Tamariki employees have over rangatahi in the youth justice residence." Although King acknowledged Hill was acting in self-defence, she said the teen did not pose any threat to Hill's safety, the safety of others or to property. "He was making offensive comments, but nevertheless he was complying with her instruction to go to the NPT in the corner of the room." Judge King ruled Hill used excessive force and the ERA erred in finding that Hill was unjustifiably dismissed. Despite this finding, Judge King found Oranga Tamariki conducted an inadequate investigation and criticised flaws in procedures, including an immediate dismissal. "Oranga Tamariki ought to have conducted a more thorough investigation before it rejected her position that she had feared for her safety at the time of the incident." Hill told NZME the four-year legal battle was about standing up for what was right. "I was invited more than once to consider an early resolution but chose to see the case through. I maintained my position throughout, and, despite the appeal, I'd rather bear the cost of pursuing justice than walk away quietly," Hill said. Iain Chapman, DCE for Oranga Tamariki youth justice services and residential care, told NZME that the safety of children sits at the core of its work and he welcomed the court's decision on this matter. "Our focus in the appeal was to ensure that the court accurately applied our regulations to this employment matter," Chapman said. "The regulations are intended to ensure force is only used in limited and appropriate circumstances." The previous order to pay $15,643.86 in lost wages and $14,000 in compensation has been set aside. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
Irish Times
3 days ago
- General
- Irish Times
Biochemist on special purpose contract with Children's Health Ireland loses unfair dismissal claim
A biochemist who was employed for 19 months at Children's Health Ireland (CHI) , and was accused of seeking to leverage a grievance procedure to obtain a full-time job, has lost her claim for unfair dismissal. Representing herself at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Mary Ann Healy said she believed her complaint against her line manager prompted her dismissal. She said she suffered from a lot of anxiety due to the handling of her complaint in which she alleged she was humiliated by the manager. . A process of mediation was established between the two employees in an attempt to resolve the issue, but this was unsuccessful. The complaint was not upheld after an internal review process. READ MORE Ms Healy appealed, but her employment at CHI had finished by the time the appeal was considered. It was rejected on that basis. Ms Healy told WRC adjudication officer Valerie Murtagh she did not believe the specified purpose contract she had been offered was genuine. She said the purpose was supposed to be providing cover for an employee seconded to another role but she had never been told who that person was. She said the recruitment process was arduous and suggested the pre-employment checks were so demanding that the experience had 'all the hallmarks' of being geared towards a permanent contract. Instead, on June 17th, 2024, about 18 months into working with the organisation, she received a message from the HR department at CHI saying the purpose of her 'specified purpose contract' has 'come to an end'. She was given four weeks' notice. Ms Healy said it was only when she was told her contract had ceased that she was informed she had been backfilling for someone who was returning. Ms Healy, who was herself the subject of a complaint by an agency worker who provided some of her training, said she believed she was dismissed because of her complaint, adding that CHI sought to avoid acknowledging this by claiming her contract was up. In its evidence to the commission, CHI, represented by Ibec, said Ms Healy was provided with a specified purpose contract. CHI's lawyers submitted that Ms Healy wanted an apology from her manager in front of her colleagues, a permanent contract and a pay increase to address her complaint. In a decision in the case, Ms Murtagh said she was satisfied documentation provided by CHI established that another employee, whose name was not published, had returned to the post immediately after Ms Healy departed the role. Based on this and other documentation supplied, she found the claim of unfair dismissal was not well-founded. She similarly rejected claims made under the Organisation of Working Time Act and the Protection of employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003.
Irish Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Builder awarded €9,000 for unfair dismissal after calling employer a ‘sneaky rat'
A builder who was fired after calling his employer a 'sneaky rat' in a row on site has won €9,000 for unfair dismissal. David Donohoe secured the award under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 on foot of a complaint against SJK Civils Ltd, where he had worked for 13 years until he was sacked in April 2024. Mr Donohoe told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing in January that he was sacked on the spot from the €50,000-a-year job when he got into a dispute with his employer about working hours on April 5th last year. He said he was told to start work at 5.30am that day, an hour and a half earlier than his usual 7am. He was told to go to Dublin to collect building materials and bring them to a site, he said. READ MORE When he arrived with the material, he said, he was told he was expected to work until his usual finishing time of 3pm, despite the early start. He declined to do so, after which his employer 'started giving out', he said. 'I called him a sneaky rat, that he had it all planned,' Mr Donohoe said in his evidence. 'He lost it again and said: 'Go home and don't come back in Monday', so I tipped up the material and went home,' Mr Donohoe said. The company's director, who was not identified in the decision, maintained that Mr Donohoe was sent away from the site on April 5th, 2024, but was not dismissed from his employment until April 19th. The director said Mr Donohoe wrote to him looking for a letter for the social welfare office to say he 'was sacked or whatever'. The director then tried to arrange a meeting and called him to a 'capability hearing'. When Mr Donohoe did not show, the director wrote to him again and told him his failure to attend the meeting was 'failure to follow a reasonable management instruction' and that his job was being terminated for 'gross misconduct' during the April 5th incident. Mr Donohoe's solicitor, Frank Taaffe, argued the letters sent by the firm to his client were only 'seeking to mend the respondent's hand' by 'retrospectively applying a dismissal process after the fact of dismissal'. Adjudication officer Anne McElduff wrote that both parties 'contributed to the escalation of matters to the point of dismissal' on April 5th and that it was 'regrettable' there was no attempt to enter into dialogue after that. Ms McElduff's view was that Mr Donohoe should have engaged when there were attempts to launch a formal process. However, she said the company failed to refer him to the correct company policy and set an 'unreasonably short and unfair' deadline to either attend a hearing or have non-attendance be added to the charges against him. The only option for appeal was to the company director, who had been directly involved with the April 5th incident, she added. The respondent company did not discharge the burden of demonstrating Mr Donohoe's dismissal was 'fair, reasonable or proportionate, or that the process was conducted in accordance with fair procedures", she wrote. Mr Donohoe had claimed losses of €15,977 between April and August 2024, at which point he went into business for himself, the adjudicator noted. Ms McElduff decided €9,000 was 'just and equitable in all the circumstances'. She directed SJK Civils to pay Mr Donohoe that sum.
