Compliance & case law | Page 14 (2,192 items)

Despite being described as "a most difficult and challenging employee for even the most patient of employers", a worker has won her adverse action claim, with the Federal Circuit Court finding her redundancy was orchestrated.

In ordering an employee's reinstatement, the Fair Work Commission has criticised an employer's "unshakeable view" of a workplace altercation and found he acted in self-defence.

After abandoning its own disciplinary policy and prematurely deciding an employee was guilty of misconduct, an employer couldn't argue its "reasonable action" was the predominant cause of her psychological injury.

An employee who complained he shouldn't have to undergo communication training, because he had ADHD and autism, was fairly sacked for misconduct, the Fair Work Commission has ruled.

Genuine concerns about an employee's mental health warranted directing her to undergo an independent medical examination, and her repeated failure to attend provided a lawful and valid reason for her dismissal, a tribunal has ruled.

Swearing might have been part of an employer's "everyday work culture", but a director's aggressive and confrontational language was unacceptable, the Fair Work Commission has ruled in a constructive dismissal dispute.

Allegations that prompted the sacking of a complaining employee were "based on flimsy foundations" and caused her mental harm, the Federal Court has ruled in awarding her $382k in compensation and penalties.

"Any reasonable adult worker" should understand that using offensive language to describe a CEO and other employees constitutes misconduct, a tribunal has noted in dismissing a sacked employee's application for reinstatement.

The involvement of dedicated HR specialists had an "adverse" impact on the procedures an employer followed when sacking a worker, and warranted an order for maximum compensation, the Fair Work Commission has ruled.

A medical opinion stating it was "possible" that a disciplinary meeting "may have had an impact" on an employee's psychological condition did not come close to clearing her employer of liability for the injury, a tribunal has found.