Supporting working parents: findings from the AHRC’s national inquiry into the prevalence of pregnancy and return to work discrimination in the workplace

In July 2014 the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) released the findings of its national review into pregnancy and return to work discrimination in the workplace1 which it conducted following a request from the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.2 The review comes 15 years after the commission’s first inquiry into pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.3Federal law has prohibited pregnancy discrimination in the workplace since the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) came into force.4 It is now unlawful in every state and territory.5 Discrimination on the basis of breastfeeding and family or carer’s responsibilities is also prohibited.6 Since 2009 the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) has prohibited workplace discrimination based on pregnancy and family or carer’s responsibilities7 and the Act gives employees additional entitlements relating to their parental and caring responsibilities. Male and female employees who are the primary caregiver for a child are entitled to 12 months unpaid parental leave upon the birth or adoption of the child and can request an additional 12 months leave.8 Upon returning to work, they can request flexible working conditions9 and they are protected from adverse action, such as dismissal, for exercising these rights.10 Yet despite these legal protections, the findings of the national review show that employees continue to experience discrimination during pregnancy, when taking parental leave and upon re-entering the workforce. This note presents the main findings from the surveys and consultations that were held with employers and employees as part of the review and the review’s recommendations for addressing the prevalence of what it terms ‘pregnancy/return to work discrimination’.

Employment Relations in Australia, 2nd Edition

The relationship between employers and employees has been one of the most hotly debated issues in Australia in recent times. Recent legislation such as the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 and the subsequent Fair Work Act 2009 provides stark evidence of this. The impact of these significant developments is explored and analysed in detail in the new edition of this popular text, complete with a balanced coverage of the often contrasting viewpoints of all stakeholders - from governments, unions and employer associations, through to individual employers and employees. The text outlines different approaches to understanding the nature of the employment relationship, with a contextual background as to how this relationship has changed and developed throughout our nation's history.

Enforceable undertakings : a new mechanism for minimum labour standards’ enforcement

Regulatory commentators have identified the need for more responsive regulation to allow enforcement agencies to respond to different types and degrees of non-compliance. One tool considered to support responsive enforcement is the Enforceable Undertaking (EU). EUs are used extensively by Australian regulators in decisions that forego litigation in exchange for offenders promising to (amongst other things) correct behaviour and comply in the future. This arguably allows regulatory agencies greater flexibility in how they obtain compliance with regulations. EUs became an additional enforcement tool for the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) under the Fair Work Act 2009. This paper is a preliminary exploration of the comparative use of EUs by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the FWO to assess their effectiveness for the minimum labour standards' environment.

Employment and industrial law in paramedic practice

This chapter will provide you with the some of the information you may need to make information on decisions in cases such as the one given above. In particular it will help you answer questions such as: 1. As Molly and Vikram are approaching the end of their shift, to attend will force them into overtime; could they refuse to attend the job on the basis of the refusal to do overtime outside of contracted hours? 2. Would their refusal be viewed as a breach of contract and therefore a disciplinary issue? 3. Why? 4. Does the need to attend this possibly gravely ill patient outweigh the demands of the paramedics to finish on time?

The evolution of freedom of association in Australia's federal industrial relations law: from trade union security to workplace rights

The early provisions protecting freedom of association in Australian federal industrial relations law supported trade union security. The interests of individuals were seen as adequately protected by collective groups. This principle dominated the industrial relations laws from 1904 to the mid-1970s. However, from the late 1970s, the laws were incrementally altered to promote freedom of choice and the rights of individuals not to be part of trade unions. The reframing of the laws also reflected changes in the wider Australian community, manifested particularly in the decline of union density rates. These changes were also part of an international trend, favouring the ideology of neoliberalism which contributed to an unsympathetic environment for trade unions. The current Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) has signalled a return to collectivism, although freedom of choice is at the heart of the laws rather than the promotion of collective groups. In the absence of legislative support promoting the viability of collective groups, this freedom to choose is threatened, leaving many workers with little choice but to disassociate.

Understanding employment relations

The text addresses workplace governance under the Fair Work Act 2009, as well as the role oftrade unions, employer associations, collective bargaining processes, and various laws pertaining to contracts of employment, equal opportunity and ...

Transfer of Title by a Non-Owner : Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet rule

The fundamental personal property rule – no one can transfer a better title to property than they had – is subject to exceptions in the Sale of Goods legislation, which aim to protect innocent buyers who are deceived by a seller’s apparent physical possession of property. These exceptions cover a limited range of transactions and are restrictive in their operation. Australia now has national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) - which will apply to many transactions outside the scope of the Sale of Goods Act and which includes rules for sales by non-owners which will provide exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet rule for many common commercial transactions. This article explores the effect of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) on the Sale of Goods exceptions, explains that the new provisions are so wide that there is little continuing relevance for the Sale of Goods Act exceptions, and indicates where they may still apply.

Surviving the Personal Property Securities Act (2009) Cth

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which is expected to commence operating in February 2012. Previous personal property securities legislation was very complex, with more than seventy pieces of legislation in the states and territories, and more than forty registers. This reform package is the culmination of a process that began many years ago and various drafts have been the subject of much investigation and consultation. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.