EMPLOYMENT LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW
The court applies the provisions of the industrial law in reaching the opinions and judgments reached in this set of cases. There are certain important definitions and terminologies used by the court in reaching the opinions hence the courts evaluates them comprehensively to determine the direction of the case in relation to the plaintiff and the defendant. An example of such terms is major changes. In the matter of Kevin Lane, Aleksander Argirov, and James Koehn versus Arrowcrest Group PTY LTD, the court comes to several conclusions based on the facts availed in each instance. The company was trading as ROH ALLOY WHEELS, being the respondent in this case while the other three parties were the applicants.
Upon the application of Kevin Lane, the facts of the case state that the respondent failed to cooperate when the accredited official wanted to inspect his car at the company’s plant in Woodville. The respondent was to face a penalty for the failure to cooperate with a certified official. Mr. Lane alleges that the respondent breached clause 34 by occasionally refusing the inspection of vehicles at the stated plant. In response, the respondent held that there was no evidence proving that Mr. Lane was an officer of the purported VBEF organization. The court ruled against the proposals of the respondent. The court is thus right to assert that Mr. Lane is an official with adequate power vested in him by virtue of being the holder of an office. Given that Mr. Lane is the secretary of the VBEF organization, he is a certified partisan of the Federal Council. The court presumes that a man of his caliber should be well known to the organization, and it should permit him to carry out the duties mandated by the law. Therefore, in ruling that Arrowcrest should face the penalties imposed by breaching section 34, the court in makes a just. All organizations need to recognize the power held by state officials. The fact that they are officers implies that they are the legal holders of the office. Therefore, all persons, both individuals and organizations, have a fiduciary duty to comply with the legal obligations that state officials have a mandate to carry out in the course of the duty. Failure to do so implies that the person is liable to penalties or legal fines as imposed by the conditions of the law that they breach.
On August 14 in 1990, James Koehn and Aleksander Argirov were the respondent’s employees. Koehn’s scope of employment encompassed the duties of a spray painter within the paint shop. He was attached an OE machine within the shop. On the other hand, Argirov was a trainee working as a spray painter in the automotive section. On the date mention, the respondent decided to terminate their employment citing a downturn within the industry that the company actively traded. During the course of their employment, the respondent always asserted that their employment was primarily causal in nature. Consequently, the employer could dismiss them at any time as and when he deems fit to do so. In this light, the plaintiffs want the court to impose some penalties on the respondent for failing to honor the contractual awards promised to them in case of dismissal. Allegedly, there is some failure on the part of the respondent for failing to honor the award. The applicants claim that the respondent did not treat either of them as people employed on a weekly basis prior to the termination of the contract in addition to failing to notify them prior one week prior to the termination. He did not grant that them a one-week pay about the notice of dismissal. They hold that the dismissal was unjust, harsh, and unreasonable.
In their quest for penalties against the respondent, the court dismissed their application. The court is right in dismissing their application because the employer emphatically reminded the two applicants that they were casual employee. Here, it is important to note that the employer does need to put this provision in the terms of the contract of employment. It is possible to imply contracts by conduct. Therefore, if the respondent behaved in manner tom suggest to the applicants that their employment was temporary. Then it grants him the liberty to dismiss them anytime. There may be a notice of termination prior to its implementation although that provision usually comes down to the nature of the contract in question. If the contract does not specify the period within which notice should be served, then it is at the discretion of the employer. However, I do not agree with the decision of the courts to dismiss the rights of the applicants to receive their award. If the award is part of the employment contract, the court needs to point out an exception in this case because of the nature of the facts at hand. Employment law requires the reimbursement of any due amounts to an employee upon the termination of the contract of employment. Therefore, the applicants a have a right to claim their award.
Bibliography
Collins, H. Employment law. 2010.
Holland, J. A., and S. Burnett. Employment law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Price, R. B. Employment law in principle. Sydney: Lawbook Co, 2002.
Taylor, E. The manager's guide to employment law and practice in Australia. Melbourne, Vic: Business Library, 1991.
