*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email:\u00c2\u00a0LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0or\u00c2\u00a0contact us on 1300 304 195\u00c2\u00a0(Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980\u00c2\u00a0(international customers) during business hours\u00c2\u00a0(Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Workplace Review<\/em><\/span>\u00c2\u00a0(Volume 8 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/span><\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c General Editor: Jeffrey Phillips SC <\/em><\/p>\n The Fair Work Commission and Self-represented Parties <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Hon Reg Hamilton<\/p>\n The federal industrial tribunal has been dealing with increasing numbers of individual applicants since the unfair dismissal jurisdiction was transferred to it in 1996, and with the addition of jurisdictions such as the bullying jurisdiction. There has been a relative decline in the Fair Work Commission\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s traditional focus on collective disputes. A substantial number of individual matters involve unrepresented litigants. Commission decisions suggest that they may have difficulty in understanding tribunal procedures or the merits of claims, to a greater extent than represented applicants, and this is consistent with other evidence. They raise the question of whether such applicants make and continue applications because of the personal cost of an incident or incidents, rather than merit, to a greater extent than represented applicants. This article details some of the problems that result, and suggests some solutions.<\/p>\n An Update on the Contractual Status of Corporate Policies <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Ian Latham<\/p>\n One of the more difficult tasks faced by practitioners is to determine the terms of a contract that is as dynamic and uncertain as a contract of employment. Many such contracts include a range of express and implied terms. The express terms are often based on a multitude of representations and the implied terms based upon the conduct of the parties and the contract itself. In recent years, the courts have grappled with questions as to the contractual status of corporate policies and the extent to which they bind either party. This article will show that the answers to those questions are still somewhat uncertain and await an authoritative determination.<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153It Is Not a Perfect World\u00e2\u20ac\u009d: Workplace Bullying and an Employer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Duty of Care <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Milaan Latten and John Tuck<\/p>\n In Wearne v Victoria<\/em>, a case manager brought an action in negligence against her employer alleging that she had been bullied and that her employer had failed to provide a safe workplace. Despite a finding that no bullying had occurred, her employer was held liable for the psychiatric harm she suffered. This case demonstrates that employers are obliged to do more than simply ensure that their employees behave reasonably; they are required to implement a detailed management plan for dealing with workplace conflict.<\/p>\n Perils of Parliamentary Privilege <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c James Macken<\/p>\n Protracted negotiations for a new agreement for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection were terminated recently by the Fair Work Commission and were followed by the beginning of arbitration of a workplace determination. However, proceedings in the Commission promptly ran into further delay when the parties raised objections to evidence based on parliamentary privilege.<\/p>\n Judicial Bullying <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Jeffrey Phillips SC<\/p>\n INTERVIEW<\/a><\/p>\n DISCRIMINATION<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Elizabeth Raper<\/em><\/p>\n WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Michael Tooma<\/em><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n