*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 7 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n FOCUS ON AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY<\/a><\/p>\n For whom the bell tolls? Employment law compliance \u00e2\u20ac\u201c it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not just the employer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s responsibility<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Neil Napper and Daniel Proietto<\/p>\n While compliance with employment law remains the primary responsibility of the employer, in Australia the Fair Work Act 2009<\/em> (Cth) has broadened responsibility through the concept of accessorial liability to any person involved in a contravention. The category of people who may be involved in a contravention is not closed. It includes directors and other officers of corporations, managers (such as Human Resources Managers) as well as external advisers like accountants and, possibly, lawyers. The concept has also been used to extend responsibility to other organisations seen as the ultimate beneficiaries of a worker\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s labour, such as head or principal contractors and franchisors. It is vital that all who benefit from labour \u00e2\u20ac\u201c and their advisers \u00e2\u20ac\u201c are aware of the potential risks, and take steps to ensure compliance with employment laws.<\/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 Is there still an implied term of reasonable notice on termination?<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Shauna Roeger and Professor Andrew Stewart<\/p>\n Traditionally, a term requiring reasonable notice on termination of a contract of employment has been implied where the contract has no agreed duration and makes no provision for termination without cause. This settled understanding has been disturbed by a recent decision of the South Australian District Court, Kuczmarski v Ascot Administration Pty Ltd<\/em> [2016] SADC 65 (\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Kuczmarski<\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u009d), which held that the term was not implied into a contract governed by s 117 of the Fair Work Act 2009<\/em> (Cth). If this view (which has been contested) is upheld, there will be little practical scope to imply the term, at least in relation to termination by employers.<\/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 Workplace Review\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s <\/em><\/strong>year, in review<\/strong><\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Craig Ryan<\/p>\n This review of Workplace Review in 2016 considers the comprehensive coverage of workplace relations issues provided by the journal this year. It acknowledges that while partisan engagement with issues is unavoidable, particularly with a federal election focused on industrial relations, the journal provided balance in its presentation of material. Further, the journal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s practical orientation \u00e2\u20ac\u201c including in relation to the everyday, human aspects of industrial relations \u00e2\u20ac\u201c was tempered by an examination of deeper, long-term questions. A measure of Workplace Review\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s success in 2016 was the outstanding contributions it received, including from leaders in the fields of workplace relations and law.<\/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 WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY<\/a><\/p>\n THE LAST WORD \u00e2\u20ac\u00a6<\/a><\/p>\n DIARY<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: WR Vol 7 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n