<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Aitken Legal &#187; Adverse Action</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/tag/adverse-action/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au</link>
	<description>Aitken legal</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2020 01:32:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.26</generator>
	<item>
		<title>ALERT: Changes to modern awards &#8211; commenced 1 November 2018</title>
		<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/alert-changes-to-modern-awards-commenced-1-november-2018/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/alert-changes-to-modern-awards-commenced-1-november-2018/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:56:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aitblog]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policies and Employee Handbooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Law Column]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Entitlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Work Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Work Ombudsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FWC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Protections Claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unfair Dismissal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/?p=946</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As part of its 4-yearly review, the Fair Work Commission has made changes to a number of modern awards.  The changes are in relation to payment of wages on termination of employment as well as plain language re-drafting of several standard clauses. The changes take effect from the start of the first full pay period&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/alert-changes-to-modern-awards-commenced-1-november-2018/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Update: New International OHS Standard Published and Federal Court to Consider ‘CASUAL LEAVE’  Issue Again</title>
		<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/employment-update-november-2018-new-international-ohs-standard-published-and-federal-court-to-consider-casual-leave-issue-again/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/employment-update-november-2018-new-international-ohs-standard-published-and-federal-court-to-consider-casual-leave-issue-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:10:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aitblog]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Entitlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harassment & Workplace Bullying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury Management & Workers Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Performance Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policies and Employee Handbooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restructuring & Redundancies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unfair Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Health & Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Law Column]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bullying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract of Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer fined]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Work Act 2009]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Work Ombudsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Hazards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/?p=941</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This month we look at the new international OHS standard published by Standards Australia. We also discuss the current ‘casual leave’ issue that is set to be considered again by the Federal Court, with a number of parties intervening in a new case brought by Workpac. New OHS standard published The world’s first international OHS&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/employment-update-november-2018-new-international-ohs-standard-published-and-federal-court-to-consider-casual-leave-issue-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employment Update &#8211; July 2018 &#8211; Workplace bullying, performance management, and dismissals being effected &#8220;in person&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/employment-update-july-2018-workplace-bullying-performance-management-and-dismissals-being-effected-in-person/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/employment-update-july-2018-workplace-bullying-performance-management-and-dismissals-being-effected-in-person/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 02:48:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aitblog]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harassment & Workplace Bullying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury Management & Workers Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misconduct & Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Performance Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unfair Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bullying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Redundancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Serious Misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexual Harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Bullying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace function]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/?p=910</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This month we examine a case which considered the definition of bullying and also commented on what constitutes reasonable performance management. We also briefly look at a case where an employer dismissed an employee by email. What constitutes bullying under the Fair Work Act 2009 The Fair Work Commission recently dismissed an anti-bullying order sought&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/employment-update-july-2018-workplace-bullying-performance-management-and-dismissals-being-effected-in-person/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obese worker fails to establish adverse action claim</title>
		<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/obese-worker-fails-in-to-establish-adverse-action-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/obese-worker-fails-in-to-establish-adverse-action-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 04:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aitblog]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contracts & Enterprise Agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Law Column]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obesity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/?p=861</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Circuit Court has rejected that a security company took adverse action against an obese security guard (‘Applicant’), after the worker claimed he had been discriminated against because of his obesity. The Applicant was engaged to work in a control room at a university campus.  As a result of proven performance concerns, the University&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/obese-worker-fails-in-to-establish-adverse-action-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Adverse action finding results in $25,500 worth of penalties being imposed</title>
		<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/adverse-action-finding-results-in-25500-worth-of-penalties-being-imposed/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/adverse-action-finding-results-in-25500-worth-of-penalties-being-imposed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2016 23:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aitblog]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contracts & Enterprise Agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Entitlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misconduct & Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Law Column]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enterprise Agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wage Complaint]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/?p=718</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A crane hire company has been ordered to pay $25,500 in penalties after it was found to have taken adverse action against a union delegate who raised complaints about his pay. The employee claimed that he and his colleagues, who were covered by the Company’s enterprise agreement, were entitled to penalty rates in addition to&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/adverse-action-finding-results-in-25500-worth-of-penalties-being-imposed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employer to pay over $450k for adverse action</title>
		<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/employer-to-pay-over-450k-for-adverse-action/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/employer-to-pay-over-450k-for-adverse-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aitblog]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contracts & Enterprise Agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury Management & Workers Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Law Column]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workers Compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/?p=689</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Circuit Court has awarded an employee $415,698 in damages, as well as imposing $50,000 worth of civil penalties on an employer following a finding that the employer changed the status of the employee from full-time to part-time as a result of the employee making a workers’ compensation claim. The Court accepted that for&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/employer-to-pay-over-450k-for-adverse-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Depressed&#8217; employee fails in adverse action claim</title>
		<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/depressed-employee-fails-in-adverse-action-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/depressed-employee-fails-in-adverse-action-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:54:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aitblog]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury Management & Workers Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misconduct & Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unfair Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WorkCover]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/?p=655</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An employee who was dismissed for being unable to perform the inherent requirements of her role has failed to establish to the Federal Circuit Court’s satisfaction that the employer dismissed her because she was depressed. Background The employee, who commenced employment with the health services industry employer in 2011, was employed as an on-site Turkish&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/depressed-employee-fails-in-adverse-action-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Care still required for probation terminations</title>
		<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/care-still-required-for-probation-terminations/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/care-still-required-for-probation-terminations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2015 06:21:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aitblog]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misconduct & Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Law Column]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Protections Claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Probation Period]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Culture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/?p=593</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An employee has been successful in a general protections claim following his employer’s decision to terminate him inside the employee’s probation period. Prior to the termination, there was a confrontation between the employee and his supervisor about the employee not being present at his desk. The employee subsequently contacted the employer’s HR department about the&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/care-still-required-for-probation-terminations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unreasonable performance targets contribute to successful adverse action claim</title>
		<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/unreasonable-performance-targets-contribute-to-successful-adverse-action-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/unreasonable-performance-targets-contribute-to-successful-adverse-action-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2015 05:29:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aitblog]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employee Entitlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Performance Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Health & Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Law Column]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KPIs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Performance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/?p=579</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Fair Work Commission has recently found that an employer had taken adverse action against its employee when it unilaterally imposed unreasonable performance targets. The employee was employed by a real estate agency in a number of roles throughout her employment. In May 2014, the employee began what became a long health related absence, which&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/unreasonable-performance-targets-contribute-to-successful-adverse-action-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Former directors liable for unpaid entitlements</title>
		<link>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/former-directors-liable-for-unpaid-entitlements/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/former-directors-liable-for-unpaid-entitlements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2015 06:56:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aitblog]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employee Entitlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misconduct & Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Workplace Law Column]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Notice of Termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pheonix Arrangement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/?p=564</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Circuit Court has recently awarded compensation to a dismissed employee who had worked for four separate but related entities over the course of 8 years. Two of the companies had been deregistered at the time of the employee’s dismissal, while a third was in liquidation.  This arrangement was alleged by the employee to&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.aitkenlegal.com.au/former-directors-liable-for-unpaid-entitlements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
