Anti-Discrimination Laws and Partnership Laws

This study material discusses the issues of discrimination and partnership breach in the context of anti-discrimination laws and partnership laws. It explores the case of Heath facing discrimination at work and the termination of his employment without warning. It also examines the breach of partnership contract between Heath and Victor. The material provides an overview of the relevant legislations, their application in the case, and the possible legal actions that can be taken. Subject: Law, Course Code: N/A, Course Name: N/A, College/University: N/A

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
LAWS, AGENCY AND
PARTNERSHIP LAWS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................2
QUESTION 1..................................................................................................................................1
ISSUE..........................................................................................................................................1
LEGISLATIONS.........................................................................................................................1
APPLICATION...........................................................................................................................2
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................3
QUESTION 2..................................................................................................................................3
ISSUE..........................................................................................................................................3
LAW............................................................................................................................................4
APPLICATION...........................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

QUESTION 1
ISSUE
In the present case Heath who is Scottish employed in NDM is facing the issue of
discrimination. Fred manager of NDM employs British employees only and has negative attitude
towards the Scottish and Irish people. Heath handling front desk on one day faced an English
customer abusing him based on regional background and refused to let the car for servicing to
Scottish. Fred on next day blames Heath for not taking car of customer and started abusing Heath
on Scottish background. Fred along with 2 men continued to abuse till her lawn area. On the next
day Fred terminated employment of Heath without any prior notice. On hiring lawyer for abuse,
Fred threatened other employee Patrick subject to the abuse against becoming witness for heath
to proceedings that he will be fired (Sorial, 2017). Company has detailed policy on the employee
discipline matters. Policy was sound on the face and there was zero tolerance on discrimination
applied at all levels of business on start of employment, but no update and training has been
provided for last 10 years. The issue in present case is:
 Whether Heath can sue Fred based on ground of discrimination?
 Whether employment of Heath could be terminated by Fred without warning?
 Is threatening witness to case is legal ?
LEGISLATIONS
There are different legislations and regulations that are applicable to different cases and
situations to maintain law and order. Laws are framed by the company to maintain law and order
in the country. The legislations applicable to the present case are as follows.
Australian Human Rights Commission Act, 1986
It prohibits the employers from discrimination against employees and applicants on basis
of race, religion, colour, gender or national origin. It prohibits the employers to retaliate against
employee or applicant that asserts the rights under law. The law prohibits discrimination in all
the privileges, terms and conditions including hiring, firing, benefits and compensation,
promotions, job assignment and discipline (Kennedy, 2017). It also prohibits the practices which
seems neutral but is having disproportionate impact over protected group. It is illegal to harass
the employee on grounds of protected characteristics.
Australian Racial Discrimination Act. 1975
1

The law prohibits any act which involves exclusion, distinction, preference or restriction based
on the colour, race national or descent or ethnic origin that has effect or purpose of impairing or
nullifying the enjoyment, recognition, exercise or enjoyment, on equal footing of fundamental
human rights.
Equal Employment Opportunity Act 1987
It imposes positive obligations on the federal government bodies and public agencies to
combat the race discrimination (McCutcheon, 2018). Employees can approach the government
authorities to complaint for any discrimination.
Fair Work Act, 2009
The act governs employment of majority of employees, supplemented by the state,
federal and territory legislative scheme pertaining to the areas like health, work and non
discrimination. It also includes Fair Work Commission.
The law prohibits termination of the employment of employees on unreasonable grounds.
As per Fair Work Ombudsman employer must serve notice to employees before termination of
the employment. Written warnings must be provided to employee who is not complying with
policies of company or is constantly ignorant to them (McCrystal, 2018). For the termination the
policy of company must provide for such termination. Terminating employees on unreasonable
grounds before the term mentioned in employment contract is unlawful and the convicted parties
could take legal actions against this.
Intimidating Witness
Offence of Intimidating or threatening witness or victims consists in sec 315A of Crimes
Act, 1900 that states person that threatens to or cause to does who causes or does, any detriment
to other individual who intends to influence person for not bringing material information about
indictable offence to attention of authorities can be penalised for imprisonment of 7 years.
APPLICATION
In the present case of Heath and Fred there is case of Racial Discrimination, human rights
exploitation, unequal employment opportunities, unlawful termination of employment and
intimidating witness.
Fred has abused Heath for being Scottish as client was gone. Also Heath was not given
equal employment opportunities being Scottish despite of having good performance reports over
the working years. Also the Fred has harassed to the lawn with two more men. Heath will sue
2

Fred under racial discrimination act and can claim compensation or demand punishment. The
behaviour is followed in organisation with other employees also. It is illegal to discriminate an
employee on the ground of race, religion or regional background (Mokak and Guthrie, 2017).
Preference is given to English individuals in employment by Fred which is also unlawful.
Fred has terminated the employment of Heath without giving any prior notice or warning.
Also the employment policy requires 2 written warning before the termination of employment
which is not provided to Heath. There is also a policy for zero tolerance for discrimination in the
workplace but is not complied (Bishop and Chan, 2019). In the present case termination of
employment of Heath is on unreasonable grounds therefore invalid. It could be argued under Fair
Work Act, that requires employer to provide prior notice before termination employee.
Therefore, termination is void and Heath could sue NMD.
On the other Fred has also threatened Patrick to give statements for discrimination in the
workplace. It is illegal under the law to threaten a witness to the case and for this act penalty
could be imposed and also it could lead to imprisonment. Both Heath and Patrick could Fred for
threatening.
CONCLUSION
From the above case it could be concluded that Heath has been discriminated in
employment based on racial discrimination. There is also violation of equal employment
opportunity act by Fred as only English people are given preference. Heath could sue Fred on
ground of racial discrimination under above stated laws. Further termination of employment of
Heath is also illegal and unlawful as it was made without any reasonable ground and without
giving any prior notice for termination. It could be enforced under Fair Work Act for unlawful
termination and for employment discrimination.
QUESTION 2
ISSUE
The present case is based on Heath who has entered in partnership with Victor and started
the business of land mowing. There were different terms decided for the partnership which
included the fact that profit and loss will be shared in 50: 50 ratios by both the partners. Further
both the parties will work minimum of 35 hours per week and bookkeeping and front office will
be managed by Heath. On the other side Victor will be responsible for purchasing and ensuring
equipment are managed in safe manner (Mwakabole, Gurmu and Tivendale, 2019). Further it
3

was decided that all the property and money of business will be managed and invested when both
the partners agree. The last term of partnership was that is transaction will be more than $10000
then it will be agreed by both and then only the transaction will take place. In the starting time
the business of company was managed in proper and effective manner and both partners were
doing their job for which they were liable.
But sometime later, Heath at bookkeeping time found that cost have increased far beyond
expectation and also noticed that mower blades are wearing out twice. After noticing this, Heath
questioned Victor and he replied that many of client has large backyard and there he cannot
charge more than usual rates. Thereafter, Heath was unwell and when at end of financial year
witnessed the books of account, he noticed that a large transaction of $50000 was undertaken
with supplier of lawn mowing equipment. On conforming from the party to whom payment was
made they confirmed that an expensive ride on lawn mower was sold to Victor. Hence, the major
issue faced in case of Heath and Victor are as follows-
 Whether there is breach of partnership contract among Heath and Victor?
 What legal action can Heath take against Victor?
LAW
For any business there are different types of rules and regulation and laws which every
organization need to comply with. Similarly, in context of situation of Heath and Victor as well
there are different types of laws and legislation which they have to follow in any case (Hodge
and Greve, 2018). The various types of legislations applicable in case of partnership of Heath
and Victor are as follows-
 Partnership act 1963- this is the legislation which is related with all the regulation which
are applicable in management of partnership firm. This involve the regulations that how
the partners will work, in what proportion they will share the profits, roles and
responsibilities and many other factors affecting partnership.
 Contract act- this is a type of law or legislation which is related with the terms and
condition which govern the contract among two parties (Australian contract law, 2021).
This act is responsible for the management of contract that is this law governs the fact
that all the terms and condition within the contract must be fulfilled.
4

APPLICATION
All these legislations are being implemented in the business as this will manage and
monitor the working of company in effective manner (Oktavianus and Mahani, 2018). This is
particularly because of the reason that when these legislations and rules will be applied in case of
Heath and Victor then this will assist them in managing issue of business. For this the
partnership act is being applied in case of Heath and Victor as this will guide both of them in
complying with the act. This adhering to act will develop a feeling among both the partners that
they have to work in ethical and morally correct manner. In addition to this, partnership act also
defines the individual roles and liability of every partner towards the business and drive them to
follow it in proper and effective manner.
Further along with partnership act, the contract act is also applicable in case of Heath and
Victor. The reason underlying this fact is that there were some of the condition decided by both
partners at time of partnership contract (Regan, Smith and Love, 2017). These things were like
without consent of both partners the property cannot be used outside the purpose of business but
then also this happened. Victor set up his own side business on weekend and earn all the profit
all alone. In addition to this also, there was contract among both the partner that if there will be
any transaction over $10000 then this will be agreed by both the partner’s consensus. But in the
present case of Heath and Victor this was not present. Rather Victor purchased the machine of
$50000 without discussing or consulting with Heath.
Hence, the legal action which can be taken be against Victor is breach of contract as he
has not abided by terms and condition of contract. For this Heath can even sue Victor in court
and can claim its obligation in terms of money as well. Other than this they can also go for out of
the court settlement which can take place with help of ADR that Alternate Dispute Resolution
(Lipton, 2018).
CONCLUSION
From the above discussion it can be analysed that there is breach to contract and
partnership act from side of one of the party that is Victor. This was pertaining to the fact that
Victor did not followed all the guidance and implied and expressed terms and condition which
was to be followed during the partnership contract. In the end it can be concluded that Victor has
done wrong and he must be liable to Heath and pay off all the damages caused to business and
their contract. Along with this the legal action to be taken against Victor is either suing Victor or
5

claiming financial obligation. In addition to this another action to be taken is the use of ADR that
alternate dispute resolution. This resolution involves some of the dispute solving method like
negotiation, arbitration and many others which are helpful in solving case of Victor and Heath.
6

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Bishop, J. and Chan, I., 2019. Appendix A: Definitional Changes under the Fair Work Act 2009|
RDP 2019-02: Is Declining Union Membership Contributing to Low Wages
Growth?. Reserve Bank of Australia Research Discussion Papers, (April).
Hodge, G. and Greve, C., 2018. Contemporary public–private partnership: Towards a global
research agenda. Financial accountability & management, 34(1), pp.3-16.
Kennedy, D., 2017. Damages for injury to feelings against the commonwealth: Breaches of the
sex discrimination act and the racial discrimination act. Precedent (Sydney, NSW), (143),
p.58.
Lipton, P., 2018. The introduction of limited liability into the English and Australian colonial
companies acts: Inevitable progression or chaotic history?. Melbourne University Law
Review, 41(3), pp.1278-1323.
McCrystal, S., 2018. Termination of Enterprise Agreements under the'Fair Work Act 2009'(Cth)
and Final Offer Arbitration. Australian Journal of Labour Law, 31(2), pp.131-156.
McCutcheon, J., 2018. The Artistic Speech Exemption in Australian Racial Discrimination
Regulation. Media and Arts Law Review, Forthcoming.
Mokak, R. and Guthrie, M., 2017. The impact of racism on aboriginal and Torres strait islander
health: Section 181 as an important safeguard. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 8(29), pp.33-36.
Mwakabole, G.C., Gurmu, A.T. and Tivendale, L., 2019. Investigation of the challenges facing
public-private partnership projects in Australia. Construction Economics and Building,
19(1).
Oktavianus, A. and Mahani, I., 2018. A Global Review of Public Private Partnerships Trends
and Challenges for Social Infrastructure. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 147, p.
06001). EDP Sciences.
Regan, M., Smith, J. and Love, P.E., 2017. Financing of public private partnerships:
transactional evidence from Australian toll roads. Case studies on transport policy, 5(2),
pp.267-278.
Sorial, S., 2017. What does it mean to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate: Section 18C of
the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and the problem of harm. Austl. J. Leg. Phil., 42,
p.165.
Online
Australian contract law. 2021. [Online]. Available through: < https://www.acc.com/resource-
library/australian-contract-law#>
7