*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 9 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/span><\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c General Editor: Neil Napper <\/em><\/p>\n The Doctrine of Implied Intergovernmental Immunities: A Recrudescence?<\/strong><\/a><\/em> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Thomas Dixon<\/p>\n The essential and distinctive feature of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a truly federal government\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is the preservation of the separate existence and corporate life of each of the component States concurrently with that of the national government. Accepting that a number of polities are contemplated as coexisting within a federation does not, however, address the fundamental question of how legislative and executive powers are to be allocated among the constituent constitutional units inter se, nor the extent to which the various polities are immune from interference occasioned by their constitutional counterparts. These \u00e2\u20ac\u0153federal\u00e2\u20ac\u009d questions are fundamental as they ultimately define the prism through which one views the Constitution. Shifts in the lens have resulted in significant ramifications for intergovernmental relations. This article traces the development of the Melbourne Corporation doctrine in Australia, and undertakes a comparative analysis with the development of the cognate jurisprudence in the United States. Analysis is undertaken of the major Australian industrial relations decisions, such as the Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, Re Australian Education Union; Ex parte Victoria, Queensland Electricity Commission v Commonwealth, and United Firefighters Union of Australia v Country Fire Authority, in this context.<\/p>\n Is There Such a Thing as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Free Speech\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for Australian Employees?<\/strong><\/a><\/em> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Neil Napper<\/p>\n It is commonly assumed that in democratic Australia freedom of speech is unbounded, but is that the case? In this article, Neil Napper reminds us that it is a limited freedom subject to the constraints of the law. With particular reference to recent cases such as the Folau and Banerji litigation, Napper considers the operation of the freedom in the employment context. His conclusions are sobering: freedom of speech at work is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a highly fragile, contingent concept\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n Welcome to the Age of Keyboard Warriors<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Lachlan Robison<\/p>\n Lachlan Robison considers the emergence of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Online Court\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, expressing scepticism about its claims to greater efficiency in the disposal of litigation matters while praising the virtues of in-person courtroom appearances for the development of lawyers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 skills.<\/p>\n INTERVIEW<\/a><\/p>\n CASE NOTE<\/a><\/p>\n OBITUARY<\/a><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/p>\n THE LAST WORD<\/a><\/p>\n DIARY<\/a><\/p>\n INDEX<\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: WR Vol 9 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n