澳洲论文代写:替代雇佣

06 3月 澳洲论文代写:替代雇佣

澳洲论文代写:替代雇佣

因此,建议APA通知有关方面,由于员工没有拒绝该要约,并且由于没有提供确认员工对第一家公司的服务的提议,因此可以将其视为程序性不当行为的案例。
这已反映在[James Hardie Industries NV v澳大利亚证券和投资委员会[2010] 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)[2009] 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。

澳洲论文代写:替代雇佣
因此,APA的法律追索权是根据2011年公司法,2009年公平工作法和1970年最高法院法,向公司通报其员工的合同义务。这些含义如下:
该公司并未确定其无力偿债或破产,并且在以备用工作形式推行裁员计划之前,并未寻求全面的会员批准
替代雇佣的形式是对雇员的偏见,因为薪酬明显较少(减少20%),尽管权利的程度有所减少
该公司通过向员工支付较低的工资以代替有利可图的利润而歧视员工,这些利润现在用于向新任命的员工分配相对较高的薪水和增加的福利
尽管第二家公司不承认第一家公司雇员的雇用,但第一家公司实际上是第二家公司的联营公司,凭借其第二家公司的利润获得重大股息
第二家公司因此受到第一家公司的直接控制,这是法律要求平等对待所有这些员工的公司。

澳洲论文代写:替代雇佣

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 [2010] 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) [2009] 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.

澳洲论文代写:替代雇佣
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.