I have been following a thread elsewhere and this part of the new employment laws is currently being discussed.
It would seem that any one who employs people is regarded as guilty of any wild accusation made against them by a disgruntled employee unless/until they can prove their innocence.
Our laws have been turned on their head, this will be very anti employment once it becomes general knowledge, I for one would not employ anyone ever again because of it.
Some links to an explanation of the law as it is now
<<A substantial difficulty for any party facing a General Protections complaint, and thereby forced to defend their actions, is the reverse onus of proof requirement set in place by Section 361 of the Fair Work Act. The reverse onus of proof requires that an allegation is presumed to be true if a person alleges that another person took adverse action against them for some particular reason. The burden of disproving the allegation is placed on the second person against whom the allegation is made.>>
<<Example
John is an employee of a hardware store, Fix-It-Up Pty Ltd. John's manager, Peter, has advised John on a number of occasions that his performance of his role was below the standard expected. Peter undertakes a performance
management process with John in an effort to lift his standard of performance.
Peter formally counsels John on his performance deficiencies and finally issues a written warning to John that his employment may be terminated.
John's performance does not improve to the standard required, and his employment is terminated.
John notifies a General Protections dispute to Fair Work Australia, alleging that he has been dismissed due to his religious beliefs.
Despite the fact that John's religious beliefs played no part in the decision to terminate his employment, Section 361 requires the former employer to prove that the allegation in regard to John's religious beliefs is not true. If the former
employer is unable to prove that there is no basis for the allegation, the employer is liable for a fine of up to $33,000 and individuals who were involved in the decision-making process are potentially liable for a fine of up to $6,600 each.>>
http://www.deewr.gov.au/WorkplaceRe...view/Documents/ConfederationofACTIndustry.pdf
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...slipper_assumed_guilty_under_labors_laws/P20/
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s361.html
It would seem that any one who employs people is regarded as guilty of any wild accusation made against them by a disgruntled employee unless/until they can prove their innocence.
Our laws have been turned on their head, this will be very anti employment once it becomes general knowledge, I for one would not employ anyone ever again because of it.
Some links to an explanation of the law as it is now
<<A substantial difficulty for any party facing a General Protections complaint, and thereby forced to defend their actions, is the reverse onus of proof requirement set in place by Section 361 of the Fair Work Act. The reverse onus of proof requires that an allegation is presumed to be true if a person alleges that another person took adverse action against them for some particular reason. The burden of disproving the allegation is placed on the second person against whom the allegation is made.>>
<<Example
John is an employee of a hardware store, Fix-It-Up Pty Ltd. John's manager, Peter, has advised John on a number of occasions that his performance of his role was below the standard expected. Peter undertakes a performance
management process with John in an effort to lift his standard of performance.
Peter formally counsels John on his performance deficiencies and finally issues a written warning to John that his employment may be terminated.
John's performance does not improve to the standard required, and his employment is terminated.
John notifies a General Protections dispute to Fair Work Australia, alleging that he has been dismissed due to his religious beliefs.
Despite the fact that John's religious beliefs played no part in the decision to terminate his employment, Section 361 requires the former employer to prove that the allegation in regard to John's religious beliefs is not true. If the former
employer is unable to prove that there is no basis for the allegation, the employer is liable for a fine of up to $33,000 and individuals who were involved in the decision-making process are potentially liable for a fine of up to $6,600 each.>>
http://www.deewr.gov.au/WorkplaceRe...view/Documents/ConfederationofACTIndustry.pdf
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...slipper_assumed_guilty_under_labors_laws/P20/
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s361.html