*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Workplace Review <\/em>(Volume 6 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n FOCUS ON QUEENSLAND<\/a><\/p>\n Regulation of union ballots in Australia \u00e2\u20ac\u201c a reflection<\/a> <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Keith Harvey<\/p>\n Government regulation of union election ballots has been a controversial matter in Australia until relatively recently. In this article former union Industrial Officer Keith Harvey looks at the background to the introduction of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153court-controlled\u00e2\u20ac\u009d ballots for Australian union officials, with particular reference to the turbulent events of the 1940s and 1950s when Communist and anti-Communist groups battled for control of unions and their delegations to Australian Labor Party (ALP) conferences.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Sections 433 and 561 of the Corporations Act: Priority to payment of employee entitlements?<\/a> <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>John-Paul Redmond<\/p>\n Employees could be at risk of a loss of accrued leave entitlements \u00e2\u20ac\u201c and at risk, is the statutory requirement to pay them \u00e2\u20ac\u201c once a company enters external administration. Employees of companies in receivership may lose entitlements they would ordinarily receive during liquidation, depending entirely on the time at which a company enters administration or liquidation.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Bullying\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in common law litigation<\/a> <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Lachlan Robison<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Bullying\u00e2\u20ac\u009d has become an important issue in a number of spheres both in relation to statutory compensation schemes and at common law. Courts have long accepted that employers may incur common law liability for \u00e2\u20ac\u0153bullying\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of their staff in the context of established principles of the law of negligence. Exactly what is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153bullying\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, however, is a question that has vexed many a practitioner, especially in common law matters where there is no rigid definition. The recent New South Wales District Court decision in Lal v Australian Administrative Services Pty Ltd<\/em> sheds light on that question and has removed a considerable degree of uncertainty in advising parties in negligence claims arising out of allegations of bullying.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n INTERVIEW<\/a><\/p>\n COMMON LAW AND GENERAL PROTECTIONS<\/a><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a><\/p>\n THE LAST WORD<\/a><\/p>\n DIARY<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: WR Vol 6 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n