澳洲论文代写：雇员法律问题

澳洲论文代写：雇员法律问题

在这种情况下，有问题的员工提供了另一种就业的小利益，而这意味着他们不得不采取同样的或其他地方寻求就业，而采用由母公司在重组后的飞行员被支付之前的工资。这直接违反了《公司法第2001条第215款》，该条规定，当某一组织的某些成员享有的利益不需要成员批准时，且仅当“给予利益不歧视公共公司其他成员时”。

从这一违规行为中产生的一个有趣的方面是，问题雇员是否不再是母公司的雇员，这是不公平解雇的问题。[ B、C和D诉澳大利亚邮政公司澳大利亚邮政局]在这方面被视为具有里程碑意义的先例。虽然本案的内容不一定与案件的情况相符合，但说明其雇主解雇雇员的行为可能是严厉的，即使有同样的理由也很重要。

这似乎是由公平工作法增强，2009。[第119节，《公平工作法》第2009条规定，如果雇员的工作终止，雇员有权获得解雇费。它已被规定，这是做在业主主动自“雇主不再需要由员工被人“[ 119-2做工作，公平工作法2009 ]或因“破产或破产的雇主”。但是，同样的法律并没有规定，如果可以接受的话，这一裁决是强制性的，为雇员找到了交替雇用。

既然已经证实有转移就业，[第22（一），公平工作法2009 ]指出，如果一个员工从一家公司转移到第二，如果这两家公司有关联的实体，雇佣员工数量就业向二公司。该法第6节还规定，雇员享有与第一次雇用相同的权利。

澳洲论文代写：雇员法律问题

In the context of this situation, the employees in question were offered an alternate employment under smaller benefits, and it followed that they had no option but to take the same or seek employment elsewhere, whereas pilots employed by the parent company after the restructure are being paid the earlier wages. This is in direct violation of [Section 215, Corporations Act 2001], which states that the benefits accorded to certain members of an organization does not need member approval if and only if “giving the benefit does not discriminate unfairly against other members of the public company.”

An interesting aspect which pops up from this violation is the question of whether the employees in question no longer being employees of the parent company amounts to unfair dismissal. [B, C and D v. Australian Postal Corporation T/A Australia Post] is considered a landmark precedent in this regard. Though the contents of this case do not necessarily match the conditions of the case in hand, it is significant to the effect of stating that the dismissal of an employee by his/her employer may be harsh, even when there is a valid reason for the same.

This seems to be reinforced by the Fair Work Act, 2009. [Section 119, Fair Work Act 2009] stipulates that if an employee’s employment is being terminated, the employee is entitled to a redundancy pay. It has been stipulated that this has to be done at the employer’s initiative since “the employer no longer requires the job done by the employee to be done by anyone” [119-2, Fair Work Act 2009] or because of the “insolvency or bankruptcy of the employer”. However, the same law does not stipulate that this award be mandatory if acceptable, alternate employment has been found for the employee.

Since it has been established that there has been a transfer of employment, [Section 22-5(a), Fair Work Act 2009] states that if an employee is transferred from one company to the second, and if both the companies are associated entities, the employment of the employee counts as employment towards the second company.  Sub-section 6 of the same Act also states that the employees do not have the same entitlements as of the first employment.