"Trump-like" employer concedes HR not "Rolls-Royce"; Employer fails to win security of costs order; Late application approved after language difficulties.
The FWC has upheld Toyota's sacking of a supervisor for improperly exercising his power, finding his "benevolent sexism" and inappropriate behaviour towards a group of young, female fixed-term contractors created a weird, dirty and unhealthy environment.
The FWC has found "justified, proportionate and fair" the summary sacking of a health worker whose duties included running a men's group that addressed issues including domestic violence, after police arrested and charged him with assaulting his partner.
The FWC has found an Aboriginal corporation took unlawful adverse action by sacking three cultural heritage field officers for failing to prove ancestral connections, noting it was a by-product of the misery inflicted on victims of the stolen generation.
The FWC has taken the rare step of ordering indemnity costs against a manager accused of HR breaches, finding she kept pressing a "doomed to fail" unfair dismissal application in a bid to inflict maximum harm, but it has thrown out a costs claim against her solicitor.
Dismissal should be effected "in person"; Highly-paid manager not award-covered; Late claim sent to FWC staffer to proceed: Bench; Claim survives non-compliance with evidence deadline.
A large employer's failure to tell an employee what claims were being investigated before conducting a recorded interview was among a number of flaws identified by the FWC in a procedurally "infected" dismissal.
The FWC has emphasised that young women should not have to tell older superiors that they don't want sexually loaded communications, upholding the sacking of a senior council worker who insisted younger co-workers welcomed his numerous salacious texts.
The Fair Work Ombudsman's prosecution of food delivery service Foodora has been followed by a landmark decision on the gig economy by the UK Supreme Court.
In refusing an extension of time application, the FWC has found incorrect advice that a "no-win/no-fee" law firm allegedly gave a worker about the cut-off date for lodging her unfair dismissal application would not constitute representational error as it declined her business.
