by David Kidd | Mar 22, 2015 | Uncategorized
WCT51/14 Bucket (“As the rostered on call doctor … [W] was expected to re-examine and reassess any new patient he had seen overnight [as part of recall duties], before the end of his on call period the following morning. Fulfilment of this expectation was the established practice. … [W] did not need a specific instruction to do so because he correctly understood it was an expectation of the respondent that he would carry out that duty. He was accordingly authorised by the expectation to carry out this recall duty. The obligation was to attend at either FMC or WCH in the morning depending on where he had examined the patient overnight, and before the start of his normal day shift at FMC” @12 – W was injured in a car accident whilst on the way to perform his recall duty before he started his regular morning shift – R contended that W’s “second journey to FMC, on which he was injured, was for the purpose of an unauthorised or voluntary early start to his normal day shift which included checking on Mr A, but none of this was a recall duty” @30 – “At the moment of injury he was travelling to attend work for the purpose of performing more recall work tasks that arose solely as a result of him being recalled to duty earlier in the same on call period. The only reason he was travelling at that particular time was to perform recall duties. He was also entitled to be paid wages for the whole time spent on the journey, as the recall was deemed by...
by David Kidd | Mar 19, 2015 | Uncategorized
[2009] FWA 779 Vic Lee C v CLS P/L (R argued that FWA had no jurisdiction as worker’s {W} annual earnings exceeded the high income threshold of $108,300 by $833 – s332, which defines earnings, considered – $26,100 of W’s remuneration was in the form of a living away from home allowance {LAFHA} – Acton SDP concluded that the LAFHA “was in the nature of compensation to [W] for the additional accommodation expenses he reasonably incurred because he was required to live in Australia away from his usual place of residence in the United Kingdom in order to perform the duties of his employment with CLS … [and that] more than $833 in LAFHA was not earnings within the meaning of s332 … or for the purposes of s382(b)(iii) … Nor was it other benefits worked out in accordance with the regulations, as described in s382(b)(iii) … In considering the scope of ‘earnings’ within the meaning of s332 … or for the purposes of s382(b)(iii) … it is relevant that s332(2)(b) … provides that reimbursements do not constitute such earnings” @18-20. [2010] FWA 1952 NSW Chang v Ntscorp Ltd (A held to have exceeded the high income threshold as FWA satisfied that “the provision of a motor vehicle for private use, and the payment of a home internet subscription were benefits enjoyed by the [A] in return for her work”@25 – approach to calculating the motor vehicle component of her income and the approach to non-monetary benefits in general considered and Fewings applied) [2010] FWA 2907 WA Atkinson v Midway Community Care Inc (applicant exceeded high income threshold when...
