Workplace Law for ACE Insurance Limited - myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theWorkplace Law for ACE Insurance Limited. Answer: Issue According to the case studies the issue has been arises whether Amanda is an employee or an independent contractor and she can recover her injury for her effective dismissal? Rules The employee is person who works for the employer for the exchange of wages, salary. Employees work for individually. They can also work as per some contract which can be written or verbally as per the terms of the employment. When someone gets the employment under the employment contract then they are bound to follow their duties and rights. Independent contractor is a person who works for another person on the controls by that person where the processes and methods are all followed under an employment agreement. The agreement has formed under some mutual contract binding. FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v LU'S HEALTHCARE PTY LTD ANOR [2016] In this case the court has found that the under the section of 45 F Fair Work Commission has set the minimum of time period where the employees are hourly ate f [ay and the defendant has failed to pay the amount as per the act. The principal contractor also failed to pay tea out to the employees. Pirie Street Stage 1 P/L v Trotman Anor and Stewart ORS [2015] SADC 123 is another case where a general contractual agreement has been made where the terms of the contract as been breached and the defendant also apply for the defense for himself. Third parties appointed by plaintiff to introduce potential purchasers for which they would be paid a commission. Subcontractor is the part of any contract where the terms of the agreement has been made with the mutual consent of the both parties Euphoria completely aware about the terms which has been they accepted and as soon as the terms define no intention to create illegal relationship then it will considered as a contract when both the parties have equal responsibility to do to their duties. Stevens v Broadribb Sawmilling Co Pty (1986) is A FAMOUS CASE OF Astralia where the court has stated the facts about the control test and business integrity test for the development of the employment status for the employees. Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (t/as Crisis Couriers)(2001) is a case which has consist of the facts where the court has provided the order about whether the person is an employee or an independent contractor. Therefore the test of the business integrity has been defined in this case. In the case of ACE Insurance Limited v Trifunovski [2013] the court has determined and investigate the defendant has been employed the plaintiff as an independent contractor but he has failed to satisfy the terms. According to the terms of the contract if any contract has been breached or terminated due to the any valid reason then legal action can be taken against the plaintiff or defendant who is liable for the actions in this matter if it has found that any of them as level for the cause of one of them hold the responsibility therefore the compensation are also claimed for the breach of the terms of the contract. Application Monks Pty. Ltd., a television production company, chooses Amanda to act in a new serial being produced. Before she commences work she signs a contract that says she will fill a central role in the serial and must be prepared to work at all times but that there is no guarantee of any continued work and that she is free to accept work from other production companies. Therefore according to the case study Amanda is a subcontractor who got the job under contractual agreement where she supposed to follow the terms. Now the director has behaved wrongly with her which is unethical to the contract. Therefore she can take legal action such unethical behavior where she claims for the compensation against the director. Conclusion Amanda can claim the compensation. The director is bound to follow the terms of the contract which he has made with Amanda about the work in his television company. Before the period is over of the contract he never terminate the terms of the contract. Therefore he has breached the contract and against of the terms of contract. He is bound to compensate Amanda for the termination the contract. Issue According to the case studies the issue has been arises whether Ken can argue that the last on / first off rule forms part of his contract and that he should therefore not be made redundant before Bob or not? Rules Under the Fair Work Commission the last on, first off rule has applied where it made an Agreement where the employees get the parental leave along with the payment in their working limits. It only occurs when the employee has does not need employees job to be done by anyone or that employee becomes bankrupt. In the business the redundancy only happen when the company formed or introduces new technology or they slow down their sales or production or the business get closed and relocates the overseas or them takeover about the restructures. In the case of James v Royal Bank of Scotland (2015) the court has found that a redundancy policy has been introduces for 6 years after the period of the employees were retrenched. The employer declined to pay the employee the redundancy pay. It offered to pay an ex gratia payment if the employee signed a broad deed of release. The employee refused to sign the deed of release and was therefore not paid the ex gratia payment. Australian Iron Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) is another case where the "last on-first off" test has been determined where the policy of this test has not applied in the fact of discrimination. Transport Industry - Redundancy (State) Contract Determination [2007] is another case where the workers union has claimed for minimum redundancy standards which have been carried by the principal contractor. Telstra Corporation Ltd v Keen [2005] is another case where applicant entitled to payment of compensation for incapacity for the redundancy amount the compensation payable to be reduced under s 33(1) of the Act the nature of redundancy payments. Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (CTH) has affected the redundancy terms for the employees where they are entitled to the redundancy payment. Under section 123(1)(c) of the act the general employees are basically not entitled to the redundancy payment. An employer must provide the written notice of the payment of the dismissal or redundancy to the employee. Unless the same or greater entitlements are provided for in an award, contract or agreement, notice pay on termination is covered by the National Employment Standards (NES) according to the section of 117 and 118 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Application According to the case facts an employer must provide the written notice of the payment of the dismissal or redundancy to the employee. Unless the same or greater entitlements are provided for in an award, contract or agreement, notice pay on termination is covered by the National Employment Standards (NES) according to the section of 117 and 118 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Therefore Ken is entitled to claim the redundancy amount from Bob. Though there s no mentioned terms about the redundancy amount but he has right to claim the amount according to the last and first off rules. Conclusion Therefore according to the case facts it can be concluded that Ken is entitled to claim the redundancy amount from Bob. Reference ACE Insurance Limited v Trifunovski [2013] FCAFC 3 Australian Iron Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165 FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v LU'S HEALTHCARE PTY LTD ANOR [2016] FCCA 506 Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (t/as Crisis Couriers) (2001) 207 CLR 21 James v Royal Bank of Scotland (2015) PIRIE STREET STAGE 1 P/L v TROTMAN ANOR AND STEWART ORS [2015] SADC 123 Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 1 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Keen [2005] FCAFC 195 Transport Industry - Redundancy (State) Contract Determination [2007] NSWIRComm 183