06 3月 澳洲论文代写：替代雇佣
这已反映在[James Hardie Industries NV v澳大利亚证券和投资委员会 NSWCA 332]中，该证据认为，声称不承担未来责任的公司实例可被视为虚假陈述的案例，因为“资助“和”没有未来的责任 – 不需要任何条款“作为论点。 [澳大利亚证券和投资委员会v麦克唐纳（No 11） NSWSC 287]进一步认为：“……信息涉及不完整的提案或谈判”，因此两个参与实体必须保持在同一管辖范围内。
Thus, the APA is advised to inform the concerned party that since the employees hadn’t rejected the offer, and since no offer recognizing the employee’s services with the first company had been made, this can be treated as a case of procedural misconduct.
This has been reflected in [James Hardie Industries NV v Australian Securities and Investments Commission  NSWCA 332], which held that the instance of a company claiming no future liability can be treated as a case of misrepresentation since “future claims separated and fully funded” and “no future liability – no provision required” had been presented as an argument. [Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 11)  NSWSC 287] further held that “…the information concerns an incomplete proposal or negotiation” and hence both the participating entities must remain under the same jurisdiction.
Thus, the legal recourse for APA is to inform the company of their contractual obligations to its employees under the Corporations Act 2011, Fair Work Act 2009 and the [Supreme Court Act 1970]. These are of the following implications:
The company hadn’t established that it was insolvent or bankrupt, and had definitely not sought comprehensive member approval before going ahead with a redundancy package in the form of alternate employment
The form of alternate employment is to the prejudice of the employee since the pay is significantly less (by 20%), notwithstanding reduced degree of entitlements
The company had discriminated against its employees by paying them lesser wages in lieu of appropriable profits, which are now being used to dispense relatively higher salaries and incremental benefits to the newly appointed employees
Though the second company does not recognize the employment of the employees with the first company, the first is in fact an associate of the second by virtue of its drawing significant dividend in the form of profits from the second company
The second company is thus under direct control of the first company, which is legally required to treat all of these employees on an equal footing.