Employment Law Question and Answers 2022

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

EMPLOYMENT LAW1
Answer to question 1
The Occupational Safety and Health Act facilitates for coordination, promotion,
enforcement and administration of the occupational health and safety in the Western Australia.
The primary objective of eradicating occupational diseases and injuries the Act position certain
obligation on employee, employer, manufacturer, manager of workplace. The duty cast upon
employer as far as practicable make available a working environment where the employees are
not vulnerable to hazards (Abubakar 2015). The employees should take reasonable care for their
own health and safety and also others. Furthermore the act necessitates the employer to
cooperate and consult with the employers with health and safety representatives as well as other
employees who is the part of general duty of the employer under the said act (Tooma and Beech
2016). In the case of Kondis v. State Transport Authority (STA) (1984). It is decided that duty of
care cannot be shifted by employer to any other party.
In a similar manner, the employees are obligatory to coordinate with the employers
regarding safety and health matters so that the employers able to meet their obligations. The duty
cast upon manufacture of substance for usage at workplace should as far as practicable to
facilitate information on the outcomes of any examination as well as health and safety related
information concerning to those products (Underhill and Rimmer 2015). The duty of employees
to evade causing injury to other might impose greater obligation on the managers than that of
staff in workplace. For the managers the series of individuals who might be affected by decision
on health and safety matters could be broad rest on their authority and position.
The factors that can be consider in order to determine whether the duties are satisfied is
that whether the action that performed by those specific individual sin workplace I reasonable in
the particular case. Thus considering the method of hypothetical reasonable man might conduct
in each circumstances to determine the standard of acre that must apply in the particular case.
Answer to question 2
Summary dismissal of employee engages o notice, the employee is terminated on spot
owing to misconduct and thus there is no obligation on the part of employer to serve notice or

EMPLOYMENT LAW2
make payment in lieu of notice. Thus the matters that required to be taken in account for the
summary dismissal of employees in workplace is whether the violation is severe enough to
sanctioned summary dismissal will rest on the fact of the case. Therefore any act performed by
the employee which is outside the ambit of his scope of employment may rationalize summary
dismissal. The burden of proof is upon the employer to validate the dismissal (Barrow and Lyon
2018). Thus other than the scope of employment , the severe, misconduct, violence, dishonesty,
offensive languages, incompetence in addition to that wilful disobedience of the reasonable and
lawful instruction that is given by the superior of employer are likely to authorize the summary
dismissal of employers. Furthermore there are several grounds of summary dismissal which are
as follows. It is obligatory to consider first at the specific employment association and then at the
behavior of employee that evolve the cause of dismissal. The second factor that validate e instant
dismissal is the employment relationship that might not be consider with the same grade of
severity in another. In the case of Hussein v. Westpac (1995), it is crucial that the employer
exhibit a nexus in between the misconduct in issue and the scope of duties of the employee.
In the case of Common wealth Bank of Australia v. Barker (2014) HCA 32, the high
court of Australia held that there is no implied obligation that the parties will nor without
reasonable notice conduct themselves likely to seriously destroy or damage the association of
confidence and trust in between the employee and employer and thus it is not necessary in sense
that would validate it by legislation into employment contracts.
In the case of Cosmore v. Public Service Board of New South Wales (1987) 10 NSWLR 587, it
had been stated by Supreme Court of New South Wales that the unless employer waives the
usual requirement of the agreement of employment that the employee perform full range of work