A story about being engaged in research : buzzing bees, small business and Australian unfair dismissal laws

Protection for employees from unfair dismissal (UFD) has been around in Australia under various guises for 30 years or so (Chapman, 2006). Labour standards, and particularly ILO Convention 158 (Convention Concerning Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer 1982), underpin the adoption of a particular form of federal statutory UFD regime which first appeared in the 1993 reforms to the Industrial Relations Act 1998 (Commonwealth). Its existence, however, has not been uncontroversial, and the meaning, operation, scope and remedies have attracted attention over time. In fact, the first reforms to the federal UFD regime were undertaken under the Keating Labor government three months after they were enacted (Chapman, ibid.). Further reforms were made by the incoming Howard Liberal-national coalition government through the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Commonwealth) (WRA), and arguably these reforms continued down the ‘contraction’ path (ibid.).

Remedies for unfair dismissal under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 - a fair go all round?

Background to unfair termination laws - remedies at common law - remedies for unfair termination under Federal Awards - overview of remedies under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 - compensation - reinstatement.

Constitutive Regulation of the Firm: occupational health and safety, dismissal, discrimination and sexual harassment

As many other chapters in this book have noted, until recently labour lawyers have tended not to draaw on regulatory scholarship. In this chapter we look at certain areas of labour law through a particular kind of regulatory lens - regulation that requires firms to reconstitute their management processes and procedures, perhaps even their organisational cultures. In particular, we examine the kinds of regulatory demands made on firms by legal rules in four areas of labour law: (i) occupational health and safety (OHS)regulation; unfair dismissal law; equal opportunity (EO) and (iv) sexual harassment law.

The Right to Work in the ECHR

The European Convention on Human Rights does not explicitly protect the right to work; nevertheless the ECHR case law protects aspects of this right. The paper summarises the content of the right to work and then demonstrates how the case law protects aspects of it. Article 8 can be used to protect the right to seek employment, while Articles 6 and 8 can be used to combat unfair dismissal. Other ECHR Articles prohibit discrimination. The paper concludes with some suggestions as to how to develop this trend in the case law. First, Article 8 should be recognised as protecting the negative aspects of the right to work. Second, the relationship between Article 8 and Article 14 needs clarification. Third, there is scope to develop positive obligations in relation to the right to work.

A tale of oversimplification and deregulation: the mainstream approach to labour market segmentation and the recent responses to the crisis in European countries. WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.INT – 102/2013

After advocating flexibilization of non-standard work contracts for many years, some European and international institutions and several policy makers now indicate the standard employment relationship and its regulation as a cause of segmentation between the labour market of "guaranteed" insiders, employed under permanent contracts with effective protection against unfair dismissal, and the market of the “not-guaranteed” outsiders, working with non-standard contracts. Reforms of employment legislation are therefore being promoted and approved in different countries, allegedly aiming to balance the legal protection afforded to standard and non-standard workers. This article firstly argues that this approach is flawed as it oversimplifies reasons of segmentation as it concentrates on an “insiders-outsiders” discourse that cannot easily be transplanted in continental Europe. After reviewing current legislative changes in Italy, Spain and Portugal, it is then argued that lawmakers are focused on “deregulation” rather than “balancing protection” when approving recent reforms. Finally, the mainstream approach to segmentation and some of its derivative proposals, such as calls to introduce a “single permanent contract”, are called into question, as they seem to neglect the essential role of job protection in underpinning the effectiveness of fundamental and constitutional rights at the workplace.

Catching up with consumer realities: the need for legislation prohibiting unfair terms in consumer contracts

In the policy debate about the need for legislation to prohibit the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts, substantive unfairness is often distinguished from procedural unfairness. Current consumer protection laws appear to offer the potential for relief on substantive unfairness grounds alone. However, a review of cases involving credit contracts shows this potential is rarely realised. This reluctance to provide relief for substantive injustice reflects a preoccupation with freedom and certainty of contract, the notions underpinning classical contract theories. As a class, consumers are vulnerable in the marketplace, and they do need protection from substantively unfair terms. A new framework for regulating consumer contracts is needed, one that relies less on classical contract theories and takes the reality of consumer contracting and consumer behavior as its starting point. Unfair contract terms legislation will be a step on the path towards this new framework.

Unfair terms in residential land contracts : will the Australian consumer law improve a buyer’s bargaining position?

The prohibition on unfair contract terms in standard form consumer contracts has the potential to significantly impact on the terms of contracts for the sale of land. The definition of ‘consumer contract’ includes contracts for the sale or grant of an interest in land to an individual wholly or predominantly for personal or domestic use. Therefore, a contract for the purchase of a residence for personal occupation by the buyer, as opposed to a purchase for investment purposes, will be a consumer contract potentially attracting the application of the unfair terms provisions. Significant consumer protection mechanisms already exist in most state jurisdictions requiring disclosure of relevant matters to the buyer and providing remedies for the provision of misleading conduct. Minimal evidence of unfair terms in land contract was presented to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into the Australian Consumer Policy Framework raising the question as to whether there is an identified problem of unfair terms in real estate contracts and if so, whether the same economic and ethical rationales justify regulatory intervention. This article examines what effect if any the introduction of the unfair contract provisions will have on the enforcement of residential land contracts and the viability of previously accepted conditions if challenged as being “unfair terms”. The article concludes that despite the existence of several potentially unfair terms in some land contracts, the intervention of the rules of equity to overcome perceived hardship or unfairness to buyers from strict enforcement of terms means the unfair terms provisions are only likely to operate on terms untouched by those principles. In the authors’ view the scope for operation of the unfair terms provisions will be limited to terms untouched by the principles of equity and consumer protection legislation making it unlikely that there will be any significant realignment of the contractual obligations and rights of buyers and sellers of land.

Federal Court Rules O23 r 11 - offers of compromise - offer for dismissal of claim and to forego recovery of costs.

In Uniline Australia Ltd ACN 010752057 v S Briggs Pty Ltd ACN 007415518 (No 2) [2009] FCA 920 Greenwood J considered a number of principles guiding the exercise of discretion in relation to costs, particularly when offers of compromise have been made under the formal process provided by the Federal Court Rules.

The Down Under book and film remind us our copyright law’s still unfair for artists

Australian copyright law is broken, and the Australian Government isn’t moving quickly to fix it. Borrowing, quoting, and homage are fundamental to the creative process. This is how people are inspired to create. Under Australian law, though, most borrowing is copyright infringement, unless it is licensed or falls within particular, narrow categories. This year marks five years since the very real consequences of Australia’s restrictive copyright law for Australian artists were made clear in the controversial litigation over Men at Work’s 1981 hit Down Under. The band lost a court case in 2010 that found that the song’s iconic flute riff copied some of the 1934 children’s song Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gumtree. A new book and documentary tell us more about the story behind the anthem – and the court case. The book, Down Under by Trevor Conomy, and the documentary, You Better Take Cover by Harry Hayes, bring renewed interest and new perspectives on the tragic story.