Search Employment Law

Kaur Queens Trading labelled taxi driver Ashkan Vakilipour Takaloo an independent contractor, but controlled and integrated his work into its taxi business. The relationship broke down amid withheld wages, aggressive verbal abuse and cancellation of his ability to work out his notice.

Barber Raheel Reddy was dismissed by text after ongoing lateness and attendance concerns. Studio Image argued he had resigned or that termination was justified, but there had been no proper disciplinary process giving him a fair opportunity to answer the concerns.

Devon Whitham entered a tattoo and piercing apprenticeship that Brutalitees described as unpaid and contractor-like despite exercising close control over her work. The case concerned her true employment status, unpaid work and the heated meeting at which the relationship ended.

Cook Mark Beveridge was told to 'bugger off' and leave the Ashurst Deer N Duck Inn during a confrontation connected with police concerns about marijuana plants on the owner's property. The employer disputed whether those words had actually ended the employment.

Alert Monitoring dismissed Carl Sinclair-Walker for alleged serious misconduct after raising three concerns about his work performance. The ERA examined whether those concerns and the process used could justify immediate termination.

Kitchen hand Jagjit Singh was dismissed immediately after the employer believed he had attended work intoxicated and later returned to the restaurant. There was no paper trail of prior warnings or a proper investigation before the phone-call and email dismissal.

RMD claimed she had been dismissed by LWQ and also relied on allegations said to amount to protected disclosures. The ERA examined the communications surrounding the end of employment and whether the alleged disclosures met the statutory requirements for protected-disclosure treatment.

R1i Technology dismissed Mr Bali during a Webex meeting and then confirmed the decision in writing. The employer did not participate in the ERA proceeding and the evidence showed no meaningful process satisfying the minimum statutory tests of procedural fairness.