Employment Law
Instructions
You must clearly identify the question
you are answering in each of your answers.
You will be able to answer the
questions based on the course materials (the text book, the Fair Work Act 2009 and the readings provided
on Moodle).
Referencing
Please write your answers with
reference to the relevant case law and legislation.

When
you refer to a provision in the legislation, you must cite the provision and
the legislation (eg s 418 of the Fair Work Act).

When
you refer to a decision of a court or a tribunal you must reference the case
name for the decision (eg Boilermakers
Case).

You
may use in text or footnote referencing.

Question 1 1400 word limit
Just Loafin Around is a chain of three bakeries in
Melbourne. It is a private company 100% owned by Robert Croissant, who is also
the manager of one of the stores. The business employs 4 apprentices, 6 bakers
and 3 part-time administrative staff doing clerical work and payroll. It also
has a pool of 5 casual employees who help out reasonably regularly when others
are sick or during busy periods.
One of the people who works in the Melbourne payroll
department is Robert Croissant’s teenage daughter.
The store that Robert Croissant manages has two
apprentices and two bakers. One of the apprentices, Bob Choc Scone, is in his
third year. The other, Crusty Bun, is in his first year and has eight months of
service. Throughout the year there has been tension between the two, although
nothing which has warranted any formal action or even a verbal caution.
During the weekend, Robert discovered both boys had
been seeing his teenage daughter. He found out that this was the reason for the
tension. This made Robert very angry.
Yesterday, Robert came into the store and in a fit of
rage instantly sacked both apprentices without notice. He paid out their
entitlements and dismissed them immediately.
Robert is a proud and traditional man. He could not
stand the thought of working with two boys who had ‘been with’ his daughter. He
felt he had no option but to dismiss them – besides, he thinks that there
shouldn’t be any of that stuff in the workplace. While he doesn’t have a
formal sexual harassment policy, it is his opinion that fraternizing between
staff is always a bad thing.
Robert has heard that Crusty may challenge his
dismissal. The last thing he could afford is a big payout for unfair dismissal,
especially since he will need two more apprentices to replace the ones he has
lost. Despite this, having any of the employees back in the workplace would be
equally as bad, in Roberts opinion.
Mr Croissant wants to know:
1. Do the
unfair dismissal rules apply to his firm? He heard something about small
businesses being exempt, but does this apply?
2. Is he
liable for the unfair dismissal and
what would be his liability if Crustys application were successful?
3. What
approach should he take if he wants to settle with Crusty?

Employment Law Instructions You must clearly identify the question
you are answering in each of your answers. You will be able to answer the
questions based on the course materials (the text book, the Fair Work Act 2009 and the readings provided
on Moodle).ReferencingPlease write your answers with
reference to the relevant case law and legislation.
When
you refer to a provision in the legislation, you must cite the provision and
the legislation (eg s 418 of the Fair Work Act).
When
you refer to a decision of a court or a tribunal you must reference the case
name for the decision (eg Boilermakers
Case).
You
may use in text or footnote referencing.Question 1 1400 word limitJust Loafin Around is a chain of three bakeries in
Melbourne. It is a private company 100% owned by Robert Croissant, who is also
the manager of one of the stores. The business employs 4 apprentices, 6 bakers
and 3 part-time administrative staff doing clerical work and payroll. It also
has a pool of 5 casual employees who help out reasonably regularly when others
are sick or during busy periods.One of the people who works in the Melbourne payroll
department is Robert Croissant’s teenage daughter.The store that Robert Croissant manages has two
apprentices and two bakers. One of the apprentices, Bob Choc Scone, is in his
third year. The other, Crusty Bun, is in his first year and has eight months of
service. Throughout the year there has been tension between the two, although
nothing which has warranted any formal action or even a verbal caution.During the weekend, Robert discovered both boys had
been seeing his teenage daughter. He found out that this was the reason for the
tension. This made Robert very angry.Yesterday, Robert came into the store and in a fit of
rage instantly sacked both apprentices without notice. He paid out their
entitlements and dismissed them immediately.Robert is a proud and traditional man. He could not
stand the thought of working with two boys who had ‘been with’ his daughter. He
felt he had no option but to dismiss them – besides, he thinks that there
shouldn’t be any of that stuff in the workplace. While he doesn’t have a
formal sexual harassment policy, it is his opinion that fraternizing between
staff is always a bad thing.Robert has heard that Crusty may challenge his
dismissal. The last thing he could afford is a big payout for unfair dismissal,
especially since he will need two more apprentices to replace the ones he has
lost. Despite this, having any of the employees back in the workplace would be
equally as bad, in Roberts opinion.Mr Croissant wants to know:1. Do the
unfair dismissal rules apply to his firm? He heard something about small
businesses being exempt, but does this apply? 2. Is he
liable for the unfair dismissal and
what would be his liability if Crustys application were successful? 3. What
approach should he take if he wants to settle with Crusty?