No Comments

Employment Law – Informal Approach Acceptable

Employment Law – Background

Recently, the Fair Work Commission refused an unfair dismissal claim by an employee who was terminated without receiving prior formal warnings.

The case demonstrates the flexibility of the Fair Work Commission in accepting an employer’s informal efforts to address workplace issues.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • in July 2015, the FMG Personnel Services (FMG) inventory controller and his manager discussed his work requirements for the next 12 months
  • it became evident the employee “lacked the necessary skills, capabilities and knowledge to adequately perform his role and that his manner and attitude to customers and internal personnel was unsatisfactory”
  • the manager believed the employee failed to grasp concepts required of his role or prioritise duties
  • the employee was alleged to have failed to comply with business processes. Furthermore, he was considered to be incapable of maintaining effective work relationships
  • from September 2015, a manager ‘informally’ performance managed the employee for a period of 10 months. In this period, the seating arrangement was changed to sit the employee next to the manager for daily coaching and individual training sessions
  • on one occasion, the manager conducted training for the entire team offsite despite the training being targeted only at the employee
  • in July 2016, FMG placed the employee on a performance improvement plan. Following this, the employee emailed HR denying any supposed performance issues
  • customers consequently eventually refused to communicate with the employee
  • consequently, the employee was dismissed in August 2016
  • the employee made a claim for unfair dismissal because he alleged there were no formal warnings, contemporaneous file notes or formal performance management

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

The Fair Work Commission:

  • held there was a “complete divergence” between the views of FMG and the employee
  • stated “…FMG sought to clearly communicate to [the inventory controller] what their performance expectations were and that FMG diligently endeavoured to assist [the inventory controller] to achieve these expectations”
  • considered FMG had reasonable grounds to conclude an informal approach was likely to be more successful
  • furthermore, accepted FMG had genuine and reasonable concerns about the employee’s ability to comprehend deficiencies in his performance. In addition, the employee believed training and coaching were “ordinary workplace conversations”
  • stated that such “exchanges were intended to be, and are properly characterised as, informal performance management”

The decision is available for you to read through the following hyperlink:

Mr Robert Etienne v FMG Personnel Services Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 1637 (25 May 2017)

Employment law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers: [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Fair Work Commission – Investigation Procedural Deficiencies

Background

The Fair Work Commission has found that the sacking of a mother and daughter by an abortion clinic was unfair because the clinic failed to adequately investigate the allegations of fraud and bullying made against the pair [1].

Facts

In essence:

  • There were allegations that the practice manager of the clinic bullied nurses by threatening to dismiss them because they had left unconscious patients unattended.
  • Further allegations were made that both the practice manager and her receptionist daughter were incorrectly recording their hours, such as by failing to record cigarette breaks and long lunches
  • In denying the claims, both the practice manager and receptionist claimed that the director of the clinic had concocted the allegations in order replace them with his own wife and daughter.
  • There were also claims that the director stated he could not “afford to have himself or his business” involved in anti-bullying application brought by the nurses at the Fair Work Commission

Fair Work Commission – Decision

The Fair Work Commission:

  • Concluded that the dismissal was unfair because the director failed to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the bullying allegations or attempt to resolve the problems between the parties
  • Although the applicant’s inaccurate recording of time and wages was a valid reason for dismissal, the respondents argument was undermined by the “significant procedural deficiencies” in the dismissal process, including not enough time being given to the employees to prepare a “cogent” response to the allegations
  • Found that ultimately it was “underlying commercial and interpersonal factors between staff” that led to the director’s decision to terminate the practice managers employment
  • Awarded the practice manager $4500 in compensation for four weeks’ wages.
  • However, the Fair Work Commission declined to make orders to compensate the receptionist as she had “promptly secured alternative employment”

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • review this Fair Work Commission decision
  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this decision
  • ensure that where allegations of misconduct arise in the workplace, that those allegations are properly investigated and the employee concerned is given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations
  • ensure that where disciplinary action is contemplated, in particular potential dismissal, that a procedurally fair process is followed prior to any decision being made
  • fairly, consistently and lawfully respond to breaches of employment contracts and employment law policies
  • damages can apply for breaches of employment contracts and some employment law policies (which an employment lawyer can advise on)
  • raise any employment law questions with an employment lawyer

Employment Law – More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Unenforceable Restraints

Employment Law – Background

An ex-employee’s post-termination restraints have been deemed unenforceable by the Supreme Court of Victoria. This case highlights the impact of employer’s actions on the validity of a contract of employment. Furthermore, it highlights the limits of post-employment restraints in employment law. The failure to remunerate an employee can result in a constructive dismissal. Consequently, post-employment restraints may become ineffective.

Post-employment restraints are inserted in contracts of employment to prevent an employee working elsewhere. In addition, it prevents the ex-employee from engaging with former clients for a period of time. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Ex-Director Restrained by IP

Employment Law – Background

Climate Change Technology P/L (‘CCT’) has sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain a former director and inventor of a thermal energy battery.  The employment law decision raises the importance of documenting relationships.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • first of all, Dr Patrick Glynn was employed by CCT between 2011 and 2016. He was its principal research officer and director. In addition, Dr Glynn was appointed its chief executive towards the end of his tenure at CCT
  • he invented a thermal energy storage device and assigned a patent to it in 2011. Furthermore, he signed an intellectual property agreement
  • CCT submitted that they spent about $5 million over the last six years on researching and developing the device and associated technology
  • when Dr Glynn quit in 2016, he allegedly retained intellectual property and confidential information in relation to the device. Furthermore, he set up another research and development company and an umbrella company
  • in addition, CCT alleged that Dr Glynn and the companies had been negotiating with third parties he had first dealt with when he was employed at CCT
  • consequently, CCT was granted an interim injunction in March
  • as a result, CCT are seeking the return of intellectual property and confidential information to stop its ‘misuse and dissemination’
  • furthermore, CCT are seeking to prevent Dr Glynn and the companies from exploiting business opportunities which arose while he was director and representative

Employment Law – Decision

Justice Nicholson:

  • noted an intellectual property agreement appeared to be the ‘only express written agreement potentially relevant to the parties’ relationship’
  • noted there was ‘no written employment agreement, no deed of confidentiality or restraint of trade regulating the parties’ relationship or [Dr Glynn’s] post-employment obligations with respect to [CCT] is in evidence’
  • accepted direct supporting evidence Dr Glynn worked full-time as a chief scientist. In addition, he devoted thousands of hours to its project and possessed a significant amount of confidential information about its intellectual property
  • was satisfied there was support for potential findings that CCT was the owner of the intellectual property. Furthermore, such support indicates a large number of digital files were transferred following Dr Glynn’s resignation
  • said it was open to the court to discern from email correspondence that Dr Glynn and the companies had been negotiating with third parties
  • was satisfied that damages would not be an adequate remedy
  • concluded CCT is entitled to an interlocutory injunction. The injunction will restrain Dr Glynn and the two companies from using, exploiting, destroying or altering the ‘project intellectual property and confidential information’
  • the injunction also names entities and individuals whom they are restrained from any dealings relating to the device. Furthermore, it requires the recording of any transactions or dealings in relation to the device

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • review this employment law decision
  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this employment law decision
  • engage an employment lawyer to draft a written employment agreement with a suitable restraint of trade clause relevant to the position
  • engage an employment lawyer to draft a suitable deed of confidentiality
  • update employment contracts in response to this employment law decision
  • consult an employment lawyer if you suspect company confidential information or intellectual property has been misused

Employment Law – More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Fair Work Commission – Minimum Wage to Increase by 3.3%

Background

On 6 June 2017, The Fair Work Commission announced a 3.3% increase to the national minimum wage and minimum award wages.

The Fair Work Commission Decision

In essence:

  • The national minimum wage will now be $694.90 per week, or $18.29 per hour
  • This is an increase of $22.20 per week to the weekly rate and 59 cents per hour to the hourly rate
  • The changes will be effective 1 July 2017

Fair Work Commission’s Reasoning – Economics & Worker Poverty

  • The Fair Work Act required the Fair Work Commission to take into account economic considerations
  • However, they were satisfied that the level of increase decided upon would not lead to inflationary pressure and would be highly unlikely to have any measureable impact on employment or lead to job losses
  • They based these conclusions on findings that productivity growth has risen sharply and profit growth had been “particularly strong” in 2016 compared to previous years. Consequently, business conditions were positive and above long-term averages
  • The Fair Work Commission concluded that increasing the minimum wage would improve the relative living standards of those employees who are reliant on the national minimum wage, lifting the lowest-paid out of poverty
  • However, they did acknowledge that the increase would not lift all-award reliant employees out of poverty, especially those households that have dependent children and a single-wage earners

Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • review these employment law changes
  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this Fair Work Commission decision
  • ensure employment contracts and employment law policies comply with relevant employment laws, Fair Work Commission decisions, common law employment law principles and contractual obligations
  • update employment contracts in response to this employment law change
  • raise any employment law questions with an employment lawyer
  • damages can apply for breaches of employment laws including Awards and enterprise agreements (which an employment lawyer can advise on)

More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – New Financial Year Changes

What every employer MUST know for 1 July 2017

With the commencement of a new financial year, it brings with it important changes and new rates which will apply from 1 July 2017.

NEW! High Income Threshold (HIT)

With the HIT:

  • it is expected to increase to $143,500 (subject to formal confirmation by the FWC)
  • it impacts:
  • who can make a claim for unfair dismissal (for those not covered by a Modern Award or to whom an enterprise agreement does not apply)
  • the maximum amount of compensation payable in an unfair dismissal claim
  • those on a ‘guarantee of annual earnings’ (a Modern Award does not apply to an employee whilstever this guarantee is in place provided it continues to meet the relevant legislative requirements)

NEW! Modern Award Increases

With Modern Awards (including enterprise awards):

  • minimum wages increase by 3% (starting on the first full pay period on or after 1 July 2017)
  • absorption of wage increases into over-award payments is permissible (subject to the terms of the relevant employment agreement and what other amounts are being absorbed into any annualised salary)
  • increases to the minimum wages of junior workers, apprentices, trainees, piece workers and employees on the supported wage system will occur
  • expense-related allowances in Modern Awards will increase as set out in the Modern Award (eg, by the applicable CPI index figure)
  • annualised salaries will need to be checked to ensure they can still properly absorb/include all relevant minimum Modern Award amounts and that they continue to meet the technical requirements of the Modern Award

NEW! National Minimum Wage (NMW)

With the NMW:

  • this is applicable to employees to whom neither a Modern Award or enterprise agreement applies
  • the NMW increases by 3% to become $694.90 per week or $18.29 per hour
  • in addition:
  • special NMW rates apply to employees with disabilities, junior employees, apprentices, and those on training arrangements
  • the minimum casual loading remains unchanged at 25%

NEW! Impact on Enterprise Agreements

With enterprise agreements:

  • they must always meet or exceed the minimum wage of:
  • the relevant Modern Award (ie, the Modern Award that would have applied had the enterprise agreement not been in existence)
  • the NMW (ie, where a Modern Award would not apply even if the enterprise agreement was not in existence)
  • thus, pay rates in enterprise agreements may need to be increased (even if the enterprise agreement has its own wage increase regime)

NEW! The Sting

Be mindful that wage increases may have flow-on effects such as increasing:

  • the value of leave loading, penalty rates, overtime and superannuation contributions
  • the value of accrued leave entitlements
  • the cost of wage related expenses such as payroll tax and workers compensation premiums

NEW! Redundancy

The tax-free component of a genuine redundancy payment increases to be:

  • a base amount of $10,155
  • an additional amount of $5,078 for each completed year of service

NEW! Superannuation Contributions Base

With superannuation:

  • the maximum superannuation contribution base increases to $52,760 per quarter ($211,040 per annum)
  • an employer is not required to make superannuation contributions on behalf of employees on earnings in excess of that maximum contribution base

Questions/Assistance

If you have any questions or would like any assistance, please feel free to speak with or email a member of our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions team on (02) 9635 7966 or jcc@matthewsfolbigg.com.au [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Contractor Ordered to Return Files

Employment Law – Background

In Blue Badge Insurance Australia Pty Ltd v Farnarn [2017], an employer won a court order for a contractor to return confidential files

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • A contractor was engaged by Blue Badge Insurance Australia between April 2013 and November 2014 to provide compliance advice. However, the end of this arrangement was not “amicable”
  • Blue Badge reminded the contactor of her confidentiality obligations. These included that she was return or destroy all documents, electronic storage media and other materials relating to confidential business information
  • Blue Badge took court action after failed multiple attempts to recover the documents

Employment Law – Decision

The NSW Supreme Court found:  

  • It was likely the contractor still had the confidential documents in her possession
  • The contractor was ordered to deliver hard-copy documents, computers and other electronic storage devices for inspection or file an affidavit identifying each document, the manner in which they were held, the date in which she ceased to possess them and an explanation of why she no longer had the documents
  • Her unreasonable conduct, in “deliberately refusing to engage with” the Court warranted a costs order against her

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • review this principal / contractor dispute decision
  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this decision
  • raise any employment law questions with an employment lawyer

Employment Law – More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Fair Work Commission – Employee not Subcontractor

Fair Work Commission – Background

In the case of Zielke v Pro-Built Engine Reconditioning Pty Ltd [2017], the Fair Work Commission has found that a worker who claimed they were unfairly dismissed was an employee, instead of a subcontractor.

Fair Work Commission – Facts

In essence:

  • The worker claimed they were dismissed unfairly
  • The employer, Pro-Built Engine Reconditioning argued that the worker was a subcontractor, instead of an employee. This was on the basis he only worked as needed and a verbal agreement with him that he would be on a set wage per week and he would pay his own tax and superannuation
  • However, the worker claimed he was a full-time employee. This is because he was paid a net $800 per week, every week, never provided invoices to the employer and was given group certificates during his engagement

Fair Work Commission – Decision

The Fair Work Commission:

  • Found that the worker was an employee
  • This finding was on the basis that he was required to consult the employer before taking leave, had to catch up on tasks after he returned from leave and had set hours of work. He was also paid whilst on leave, didn’t advertise his services or have a separate place of work and the employer supplied all his tools
  • Concluded that the employer had no valid reason to dismiss the worker and had denied him procedural fairness

Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • review this Fair Work Commission decision
  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this Fair Work Commission decision
  • make sure that the terms and conditions of engagement are clearly set out in writing prior to the commencement of the engagement
  • Do not confuse aspects of an employment relationship with that of a subcontractor and principal
  • ensure compliance with all employment laws including Fair Work Commission decisions, Awards and enterprise agreements
  • penalties can apply for breaches of employment laws including Awards and enterprise agreements (which an employment lawyer can advise on

More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Dismissal of Injured Worker Not Discriminatory

Employment Law – Background

In Hilditch v AHG Services (NSW) Trading As Lansvale Holden [2017], the Federal Court rejected a fitter’s claim that his previous employer had breached disability discrimination legislation when they fired him without considering reasonable adjustments to accommodate his workplace injury.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • In 2009 a fitter at AHG Services injured a finger on his left hand
  • After surgery, he gradually returned to his pre-injury duties
  • In 2012 he was dismissed after providing medical certificates which confirmed he couldn’t perform his duties adequately and was only fit for office work
  • The worker sought damages for lost income and non-economic loss. He argued that AGHS had breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) by dismissing him without contemplating reasonable adjustments or reassigning him to another role

Employment Law – Decision

The Federal Court found:

  • Prior to January 2011, there was no reason for AHGS to consider making reasonable adjustments to accommodate the employee’s injury because he was performing his role and failed to provide any medical certificates to suggest he could not perform his role
  • In rejecting the worker’s arguments, the court cited the decision in Watts v Australian Postal Corporation, finding that AGHS only had to consider reasonable adjustments for the position which the worker had occupied before the injury
  • This was not possible in this case, as the medical certificates he provided suggested he was unfit to perform “fitter” duties and no adjustments could assist him

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers: [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Fair Work Commission – Social Media Posts

Fair Work Commission – Background

The Fair Work Commission found an employee dismissal to be unfair. Mr Somogyi was dismissed because of vulgar social media misconduct. However, a fair dismissal procedure must be followed by employers.

Fair Work Commission – Facts

In essence:

  • Somogyi was employed as a merchandiser at LED Technologies Pty Ltd
  • on 24 August 2015, he posted on Facebook: “I don’t have time for people’s arrogance. And your not always right! Your position is useless, you don’t do anything all day how much of the bosses c*** did you suck to get where you are?”
  • the post was seen by several of Mr Somogyi’s colleagues before he removed it after five minutes
  • his employer dismissed Mr Somogyi in a sixty second telephone call. The employee was told: “it doesn’t matter. You’re fired”
  • the employer failed to provide the employee an opportunity to explain his conduct
  • furthermore, the employer mistakenly interpreted that the post was referring to employees of LED Technologies Pty Ltd
  • the employee reposted a ‘clarification’ explaining his original post. He was referring to a hostile employment situation his mother was facing elsewhere

Fair Work Commission – Decision

The Fair Work Commission found:

  • the Facebook post was ‘crude and immature’
  • the post did not constitute a valid reason for dismissal
  • offensive and vulgar language are increasingly part of the common vernacular
  • there was no evidence the post was directed at the business or its employees
  • no evidence that Mr Somogyi was provided a social media policy
  • there was no sufficient connection to the workplace to justify legitimate action against Mr Somogyi
  • Mr Somogyi was to be compensated with the difference in his earnings from another role for a period of six months

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Unfair dismissal claims must be confined to their own facts. Therefore, our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • review this Fair Work Commission decision
  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this Fair Work Commission decision
  • prepare new social media policies as required
  • update employment law policies in response to this Fair Work Commission decision
  • draft new/changes to employment law policies with the assistance of an employment lawyer
  • train and consult with staff about social media in the workplace and the impact it can have on employment
  • fairly, consistently and lawfully respond to breaches of employment contracts and employment law policies
  • penalties can apply for breaches of employment laws including Awards and enterprise agreements (which an employment lawyer can advise on)

Employment Law – More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Drug and Alcohol Testing

Employment Law – Background

Drug and Alcohol Testing should be introduced with consultation in a company policy. The rationale is to prevent or rehab rather than discipline employees. However, employers need to consider the reasonableness of implementing a policy. In addition, employers also need to consider whether it breaches privacy law.

Employment Law – Issues to Consider

In essence:

  • Drug and alcohol testing should be introduced on work, health and safety grounds
  • this is because industrial tribunals have generally determined that testing is an intrusion of individual privacy. Therefore, it can only be justified on work, health and safety grounds
  • an employer has no control over what employees do in their own leisure time. Although conduct that may put an a person at risk or damage the company’s business and reputation can warrant control measures
  • because such a policy is to be considered a workplace health and safety matter, consultation with all staff is required
  • the policy is especially relevant in medium to high risk industries for instance manufacturing and construction
  • furthermore, some industries will require such a policy under the relevant workplace health and safety law
  • employers are obligated to attempt to eliminate the risk for employees impaired by drugs or alcohol. Conversely, employees may argue an intrusion into their personal lives
  • failure to educate employees about the terms of the drug and alcohol policy can result in disputes in the workplace
  • furthermore, the lack of a company drug and alcohol policy can also have negative implications for employers in unfair dismissal claims

Employment Law – Company Policy

A company policy on drug and alcohol testing should:

  • aim to educate employees about the expected standards
  • explain to employees their responsibilities
  • stipulate the consequences of a breach
  • refer to the types of substances which can cause impairment. Notably, alcohol, cannabis, methamphetamines including cocaine and ecstasy, and opiods such as heroin
  • also consider referring to legal and prescription drugs such as sleeping pills because they also cause impairment

Employment Law – Method of Testing

In essence:

  • the two most common methods of testing for illicit drugs are saliva and urine testing
  • oral testing is more focussed on acute impairment
  • urine testing is more likely to uncover drug use patterns
  • the Full Bench of the (then) Fair Work Australia concluded that oral testing should therefore be adopted for a drug and alcohol policy
  • urine testing is appropriate in certain circumstances

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to prepare an appropriate drug and alcohol policy
  • communicate to employees the drug and alcohol policy to employees
  • consult with all employees the implementation of the drug and alcohol policy
  • provide ongoing training and education to employees
  • speak to an employment lawyer to determine the appropriate method of testing for the workplace
  • consult an employment lawyer to consider the relevant privacy legislation. Consideration should be in conjunction with the company’s privacy policy
  • prepare new employment law policies as required
  • eliminate the risk of employees coming to work impaired by drugs or alcohol
  • draft changes to current drug and alcohol policy with the assistance of an employment lawyer
  • finally, engage an employment lawyer to consider relevant workplace health and safety law for certain industries

Employment Law – More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Protecting Company Connections

Employment Law – Background

Employers can take pre-employment steps to safeguard intellectual and commercial property such as company information or Linkedin connections. Furthermore, HR needs to establish a compliance framework for employee conduct, expectations and obligations.

In addition, an ex-employee’s Linkedin connections are ‘unlikely’ to be defined as trade secrets belonging to the former employer.

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • insert key restraint of trade provisions. These should explicitly refer to the use of social media connections
  • include restrictive terms for the post-employment period. For instance, restricting the use of social media to publish or share content
  • obtain a list of the employee’s current social media connections
  • include terms which provide that connections gained during the course of employment are the property of the employer
  • creating appropriate social media policies and guidelines. These should cover the course of employment and post-employment.
  • train employees to ensure understanding of obligations
  • draft new/changes to employment contracts with the assistance of an employment lawyer
  • draft new/changes to employment law policies with the assistance of an employment lawyer
  • speak to an employment lawyer about what company information can be protected
  • ensure employment contracts and employment law policies comply with relevant employment laws, Fair Work Commission decisions, common law employment law principles and contractual obligations

Employment Law – More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →