General protections and adverse action page 12 of 63

626 articles are classified in All Articles > General protections and adverse action

Click on one of the 2 topic categories below to view articles classified within General protections and adverse action.


Woolworths fined $10,000 for adverse action

In the first case of its kind against Woolworths, the retailer has today been ordered to pay an unregistered union $10,000 after a court found the supermarket breached workplace laws by pressuring a delegate who raised concerns about car park safety.

Workplace rights protections limited, Qantas tells High Court

The bid by Qantas to overturn a Federal Court ruling that it took unlawful adverse action against its former ground crew employees argues that some of the Fair Work Act's protected workplace rights are "time bound".


Payout for silicosis-stricken sacked stonemason

In a general protections ruling, a court has awarded $160,000 in compensation and damages to a stonemason dismissed because of his work-related silicosis.

Big fines loom after threats to exploited cooks

In what a lawyer believes will result in one of the biggest wage theft penalty orders to date, the Federal Court has found an employer significantly underpaid two cooks, made "cashback" demands to recoup payroll tax and visa costs and used threats to ensure compliance.

Massive general protections payout for "destroyed" manager

An employer must pay $2.8 million, including more than $1.7 million for pain, suffering and economic loss, to a long-serving manager who had her life "effectively destroyed" by a new chief executive.



Resources company seeks to suppress manager's court claim

An ASX-listed mining company that is pursuing a former contracts manager for allegedly misusing confidential information and earning secret profits is seeking to ban access to the details of an explosive Federal Court challenge to his sacking.

CEO can't change her tune, claims SSO

Sydney Symphony Orchestra's former chief executive cannot accuse it of sacking her for ordering a sexual harassment probe after initially claiming to be the victim of a politically-driven "hit job", it contends in a defence that declines to say why it did dismiss her.