green Tim Thomas jersey -
Introduction
The Workplace relations Amendment Act 2005 is one of the landmark legislations within the Australian industrial relation sector for over one hundred years now. It was passed in 2005 and implemented in 2006. The purpose of the bill was to make sure that workers could secure their jobs; this would serve as a platform for economic progress within Australia. But the legislation has not received complete acceptance after implementation. The reform meant that workers engaging in strikes would have to deal with severe consequences. It also facilitated more individual agreements and less collective bargaining by employees. (Parliament of Australia, 2006)
The bill has caused strong reactions from numerous stakeholders. A substantial number of employer association affirmed their support for the Bill. However, there are also some trade unions and labor associations that strongly campaigned against the Act. Some of these groups oppose the way the Bill was passed in parliament; they feel that most of them were not adequately informed about it. These arguments were brought forward by opposition members of parliament who argued that members of the Liberal National Coalition did not give the Bill enough time. However, there are intentions to change many parts of the Work Choices legislation as asserted by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. He represents the Labor party which may have won the election due to this issue.
Arguments against the legislation
How the legislation was passed
Numerous opposition parliamentarians were opposed to the legislation. This affected the way the matter was handled in parliament. These opposition members; who represented the Labor party, claimed that there were inadequate copies of the Bill. Consequently, they took part in numerous campaigns against the Bill on the day it was introduced. Matters became more heated when parliamentarians were required to question the Bill; Labor party members were seen interrupting remarks made by proponents of the Bill and a substantial number had to be removed from the House. (Hannon, 2008)
Opposition members also cited the fact that there was very little time to internalize matters within the Bill. First of all, the Bill was introduced in into parliament on 2nd November 2005. It was then taken to the House of Representatives and the Senate on 2nd November. This was quite a hurried arrangement. As if that was not enough, the Bill was passed exactly a month after it had been introduced. Minister at that time argued that the hurried response was to avoid introduction of the legislation during an election year. However, this undermined the need for consensus. In order for pieces of legislation to gain acceptance by the public, they need to be thoroughly scrutinized. When this is not done effectively, some problems may arise in the future especially during implementation.
The role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC)
The AIRC has been in charge of unfair dismissals and terminations too. However, the enactment of the Work Choices legislation has reduced their efforts in this regard. For example, employees who wish to make a claim to the Commission about unfair dismissals are expected to do so within a period of twenty one days fork the time their employment was terminated. This means that employees are placed at a disadvantage because twenty one days are not enough. In light of this, the legislation places more power in the hands of the employer rather than the employee since most of them may not be bale to meet this new deadline.
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission is expected to approve extensions of claim periods. However, it has been shown that most of the time, these extensions are rarely granted. Part of the reason for this could be that there is a fee for application and most employees may not be able to afford this. Another reason for this observation could be the long procedures that employees have to pass through before they are granted extensions. The Work Relations Amendment has created long procedures; first unfair dismissal cases or unfair termination cases must go through a first hearing. Thereafter there must be a conciliation conference by the Commission. This is then followed by arbitration in case conciliation fails or a Federal Court. The latter applies to cases dealing with??? unlawful termination while the former applies to unlawful dismissal. By making the judgment process longer, the Work Choices Act has made it more difficult for employees to seek justice. (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005)
Unfair dismissals and unfair terminations
It should be noted that the Work relations Act changed the level of protection of unfair dismissals. In the past, this task was left to industrial commissions within federal states. It was also supposed to be conducted through Awards. However, after enactment of the legislation, there was less protection of unfair dismissals. Consequently, there was less job security for employees. Employers now have the green Tim Thomas jersey upper hand as the Act favors them. Some critics have asserted that employers do not have to worry about the problems that come with industrial action since they are protected and they can deal with the profit making aspect of their business. However, this is something that does not consider facts on the ground. Employees in Australia need more support from their labor laws rather than more harassment. In effect, the Work place legislation Act is encouraging less participation in labor by employees. This is worsening Australia's image in the international world. (Hannon, 2008)
The Work Choices Act also has introduced too many prerequisites in the definition of what an unfair dismissal is. ?This means that employees seeking justice on unfair dismissal terms must meet certain preconditions. ?First of all, they are required to be working for a company that has over one hundred employees under its wing. Additionally, employees should have worked for their companies for a period greater than six months. Employees are exempted from protection against unfair dismissals in cases where they are working under a contract. They are also exempted if;
-they work seasonally
-they are short term employees/ casual
-they are on probation
-they are working one project
-they are trainees
-they are not under a workplace agreement
-they get more than green Tim Thomas jersey one hundred and one thousand, three hundred dollars annually
In green Tim Thomas jersey light of these exclusions, some employees have been kept at a big disadvantage. This has been witnessed in certain cases presided over by the Court. In Andrew Cruickshank v Price line Pty, Cruickshank was a former employee of the Price line Company earning a salary of One hundred and one thousand dollars annually. The Company decided to terminate his employment and hired someone else who was earning sixty five thousand dollars per year. Because of the significant differences in age costs to the employer, the Company argued that they terminated the plaintiff because he proved to be too expensive for the company and that they needed to save money. Consequently, they opted for an employee who did not require too much in terms of earnings. They also argued that they were protected by the unfair dismissals Act since saving on costs is considered as an economic reason. (The Act contains provisions that allow businesses to terminate employment contracts if the do so for ‘genuine operational reasons' such as technological, structural and economic reasons) (Hannon, 2008)
