Workplace Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Workplace Law - Case field of force ExampleHence all the jurisprudences and regulations cerebrate to awards, state or federal industrial laws are applicable and can be enforced, in eccentric person of such contracts (CCH Australia, 2010). For the purpose of this case study, the contractual true nature of contractual relationship of Jane Jones and TMMS will be studied from the perspective of Common Law, and the various legal issues pertaining to the case will be discussed, by application of principles and facts of the said case. The various legal issues, as pertains to the Common Law, related to this case are listed below 1. Breach of implied duty of mutual trust and confidence In compliance with the proceedings and decision arrived at by the Supreme Court of Australia, in the McDonald v State of southwestward Australia, it was established that the elements such as mutual trust and confidence are an integral and inevitable begin of utilisation contracts. The judiciary in Aust ralia uses the implied term of trust and confidence in order to create an pledge on the part of the employers so as to instill an interest of fairness. It is described as an implied obligation of keen faith. It was observed in the case of Concut Pty Ltd v Worrel, that the ordinary relationship of an employer and employee at common law is one importing implied duties of loyalty, honesty, confidentiality and mutual trust (Aras, Crowther, 2010, pp. 517 Brodie, 2010, pp. 166). In this case, TMMS summoned Jane and made sudden changes in the contract, which included harm and conditions which were unfair to her, and did non seek to protect her interests at work. One of the implied rules of common law states that the employees be handle in a fair manner, while the terms and conditions and the abrupt changes made, were both unfair and unjust for Jane. The employer in this case had an implied obligation to treat their employees fairly and be honest and truthful to them. Furthermore, the employer is also required to give and apply the elements of confidentiality and strive to maintain mutual trust. But in this case, TMMS decided to restructure its organization and did not take their employees into confidence prior to making any changes to their concern terms, and instead added clauses which were unjust and unfair to them. 2. Refusing to sign, negotiate, propose or vary an AWA Under Common Law, neither the employer nor the employee has the right to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of an employment contract. Any such alteration must be done through mutual discussion and agreement, else it would be maintained illegal. The employer must obtain a valid consent of the employee prior to changing any of the terms of the employment contract and cannot do so just by serving a notice. Furthermore, it has also been stated to a lower place the Common Law, that the courts and tribunals will consider an agreement received by the employer, as illegal if the conseque nce of non-compliance or non-acceptance to sign the renewed contract is dismissal with immediate effect. In such a situation, the courts will deem such changes to the contract / agreement as unfair and adverse to the interest of the employees (Lewis & Sargeant, 2004, pp. 136). In this case, the employer TMMS, not unaccompanied changed the terms of contract unilaterally, but also failed to discuss or negotiate the newly added terms with the employee. Furthermore, when specifically asked for more time to consider the said changes, TMMS openly stated that it is a take it or cede it situation, and implied that refusing to accept the said changes, would automatically result in termination of the contract. Such harsh terms and conditions not only broke the implied rule of mutual trust and