Employment Law Update for employers

Workplace Law is ever-changing whether through decisions of the courts and commissions or changes to the many pieces of State and Federal legislation that regulates the relationship between Employee and Employer. We’ve put together this fortnightly Employment Law update to assist by giving you easy to understand snapshots of some of the recent changes that affect Employers. Contact us today. 

 

‘Get Almost, Almost Anything’… Except for a Reply: Uber Eats’ Driver’s Late Application Rejected Despite “Mind-Numbing” Communications

 

The FWC has found Uber Eats’ response to a driver’s attempt to challenge it booting him off the platform for alleged misconduct was ‘farcical’, ‘inane’, and ‘mind-numbing’.

The driver made a late application in accordance with section 536LU of the FW Act, which allows employee-like workers who believe they have been unfairly deactivated from a digital labour platform to make an unfair deactivation claim.

The driver, who lodged his application 12 days late, claimed that he was misled into thinking Uber was reviewing his case as he was fed largely automated communications that failed to meaningfully engage with his individual concerns. However, the FWC Deputy President remained unpersuaded, finding that the driver could have simultaneously sought a review by Uber of his deactivation and taken the steps required to make an unfair deactivation application. In other words, the review process did not prevent him from filing within time. Finding no acceptable explanation for the delay, the FWC dismissed the driver’s application.

Abdirahman Ibrahim Derow v Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2062 (18 July 2025)

No excuse to slap students: FWC says sacking of teacher stands

 

The FWC has upheld the sacking of a school laboratory technician who was dismissed from a Catholic high school in Melbourne for slapping the hand of a fifteen-year-old student in a science class.

The employee argued that she was unfairly dismissed as the slap was intended to protect the student from harming herself as she was packing away her materials, stating it was a ‘reflex action’. However, the FWC Deputy President found that the slap occurred after she had became ‘cross’ with students who were flicking pieces of bull’s eyes at one another. Accordingly, he found that the slap had ‘nothing to do with safety’ but was because the students had ignored her direction to be respectful and had “desecrated” a bull’s eye.

Finding that the employee ‘lack[ed] insight into the seriousness of the incident and has not accepted full responsibility for it’, the unfair dismissal application was dismissed.

Jillian McLoghlin v St Columba’s College Ltd [2024] FWC 1554 (5 June 2025)

‘You have me by the b*lls’: Inappropriate text dismissal leads to hefty compensation order

After nearly a decade of service, an employee sought a ‘long overdue pay review’ from his employer. His employer’s response? ‘You have me by the b*lls’.

The employee was then offered a $5,000 pay rise which he accepted but later claimed that his employer failed to provide in his next pay slip. When he complained about this, his employer allegedly said ‘There is no pay rise. Do you want to continue or not? … If we can’t have a conversation then I think it’s time to terminate the employment. You agree?’ When the employee confirmed that he had not resigned, he was summarily dismissed.

Finding that the employee was unfairly dismissed, the FWC Deputy President ordered the employer to pay nearly $45,000 in compensation plus superannuation to the employee. Given its alleged financial difficulties, the FWC permitted this payment to be made in instalments over 12 months but made clear that if the employer missed a payment, all remaining payments would fall due immediately.

Ilias Kadji v Sigma Resourcing Pty. Ltd. [2025] FWC 1737 (20 June 2025)

Judge calls for increased penalties for compliance notice failures

A Federal Circuit and Family Court (FCFCOA) judge has urged the Labor Government to “substantially” increase penalties for both individuals and corporate entities for failing to engage with compliance notices.

The call for reform came in a penalty decision which involved a company who was issued compliance notices in May 2023 because the company had incorrectly paid an employee at a rate lower than the correct rate under their underlying award, owing the employee $2,655 plus superannuation. The compliance notice required the company to rectify the underpayment and provide the Fair Work Ombudsman with notice of the steps it took. However, the business told the FWO that it was not in a position to comply with the compliance notice and declared bankruptcy.

Accordingly, the FCFCOA judge has said there is an ‘obvious and real need for further reform in this area of compliance’ as this case was not the first of a director who is knowingly involved in a contravention that simply does not engage with proceedings.

 Fair Work Ombudsman v Aica International Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 976 (16 July 2025)

 

We hope you have enjoyed this fortnight’s employment law update. See you next fortnight!

The receipt of any information from us in this publication is not intended to create nor does it create a solicitor-client relationship between you and O’Reilly Workplace Law. This publication is for your information and interest only. It is not intended to be comprehensive, and it does not constitute and must not be relied on as legal advice. You must seek specific advice tailored to your circumstances.