Log in or become a subscriber

It was "highly inappropriate" for a worker's paid agent to pursue a general protections claim that had no prospects of success, but the Fair Work Commission says the employer's $80k legal bill appears "excessive".

In July, labour hire company Flexy Services Pty Ltd argued before FWC Deputy President Peter O'Keeffe that it didn't dismiss a worker it had on-hired to Rio Tinto; rather, the host had ended her assignment without its knowledge. Therefore, it maintained, the worker couldn't prove Flexy had taken unlawful adverse action against her on the basis of her pregnancy and her claim should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Deputy President O'Keeffe noted that from the outset, he held concerns that the general protections application was "ill-conceived" due to a lack of evidence that Flexy had terminated the worker's employment. He put these concerns to the employee's paid agent in writing, seeking additional written submissions...