Parties clash over practical details of implementing unfair dismissal remedy orders
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently finalised reinstatement orders for a mine worker who successfully challenged his dismissal, determining specific arrangements for his return to work and compensation for lost wages.
The case involved disputes between the parties over the practical details of implementing the reinstatement order, including timing, role allocation, and calculation of lost pay amounts.
The worker had been employed as an operator at a major coal mine before his dismissal in September 2024, earning $157,144 annually plus bonuses.
After the FWC found his dismissal was unfair and ordered reinstatement in May 2025, the parties were unable to reach consensus on the specific terms and conditions of his return to work.
The worker initially proposed a reinstatement date of 2 July 2025, arguing this would balance the needs of both parties while allowing time for any stay application to be determined.
He submitted this timing would be consistent with Fair Work Act requirements and would avoid unnecessary delay if the employer's stay application was unsuccessful.
The employer argued that reinstatement should not take effect until after its appeal of the original unfair dismissal decision was decided.
In the alternative, it submitted that reinstatement should be delayed by two to three weeks after any order was made to allow...
Russian propaganda continues to spread disinformation, claiming that European countries are attacking ‘Ukrainian drones’ rather than Russian ones. According to the Center for Countering Disinforma...