The government’s new system of paid parental leave is set to come into effect on January 1, 2011. Employer groups say the matter is being debated as companies come to grips with the new scheme, which provides 18 weeks’ pay at the minimum wage of $570 a week. Unions fear that companies will reduce their voluntary payments to employees, but make up the difference with the government funds.

“There are plenty of companies who might say, ‘We are in tight financial circumstances, we have been offering paid parental leave voluntarily, is this something we can continue to afford to do in light of the introduction of the government scheme?’ It will be those companies having a close look at their policies.

When the Labor government introduced the scheme, it made a point of amending the bill to state that the payments would be additional to existing entitlements. But it is still possible for employers to change existing leave provisions if they are contained in company policy rather than enterprise bargaining agreements. Unions are planning to ask companies to shift provisions in policy to enterprise agreements when they come up for renegotiation.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry director of workplace policy David Gregory said any roll backs would be hard to implement in a tight labour market. “I think there would be a lot of resistance from employees as well as their unions if any employer tried to scale back entitlements,” he said.

Paid parental leave amounts to $10,260 before tax and will be paid to employers by the Family Assistance Office. Employers then funnel the payment to their employees.

The Coalition introduced legislation seeking to have the payments made directly to workers last week. A spokeswoman for the Minister for Families, Jenny Macklin, said companies that continued to pay existing entitlements would fare better with retaining staff. Paid parental leave has been championed by Labor MP Tanya Plibersek, who gave birth to Louis Paul, her third child with husband Michael Coutts-Trotter, the director-general of the NSW Education Department, last month.

In a new development int he largest sexual harassment claim in Australian history, the names of women expected to give evidence of alleged sexual misconduct in the $37 million harassment case again David Jones and its former chief executive have been suppressed until at least tomorrow, after a bid by Kristy Fraser-Kirk’s lawyers in the Federal Court today.

But in the Federal Court today, Justice Geoffrey Flick voiced strong concerns about aspects of Ms Fraser-Kirk’s case, suggesting that alleged conduct by former chief executive Mark McInnes at previous companies could not be used to compound David Jones’s liabilities. He made no order on the matter. The comments by the Judge have left both sides wondering where they stand and made it clear that there will no decisive victory for either side in relation to the litigation. This will almost certainly affect the negotiating position of the parties.

“You say that Mr. McInnes breaches his duty of care to the employees in David Jones, and not only should he pay damages for that breach of duty and punitive damages, but he should, by breaching his duty of care to the employees of David Jones, pay punitive damages – all in the context of his conduct towards employees in other places, including those involved in the process of filing wrongful termination claims?” Justice Flick said.

“You may be right but it doesn’t strike me as self-evidently correct.”

Ms Fraser-Kirk’s lawyer, Rachel Francois, has until 11.30am tomorrow to file two folders of evidence explaining why the other women who will give evidence in the case should have their identities suppressed.

“It’s impossible for us to mitigate this blindfold when we don’t know who these people are,” the lawyer acting for David Jones, Kate Eastman, said.The request by lawyers for Ms Fraser-Kirk comes as the former David Jones publicity co-ordinator is suing Mr McInnes and the retailer in a $37 million case.

Ms Fraser-Kirk alleges that Mr McInnes made unwelcome sexual advances towards her at work functions and that David Jones tolerated a culture of harassment. In what must be close to an admission of guilt, Mr McInnes resigned on June 18 after admitting he had behaved inappropriately towards her. Some critics have also taken aim at the sheer size of the claim. Particularly in relation to the claim against David Jones itself as a company, there appears to be some difficulties in attributing the claim against David Jones in the actual amount claimed.

Some of the most sexist people in Australia for 2010 have featured Tony Abbot, Mark McInnes, Joe – Hockey FHM magazine and St Pauls College students. Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has taken out two Ernie Awards at the 18th annual forum which names and shames public figures for making sexist comments throughout the year. The winners are determined by how loud the 300 women who attend the event at NSW Parliament House in Sydney howl, hiss and boo the nominations. But he missed out on the top prize this year, the Gold Ernie, which went to a group of university students at St Paul’s College in Sydney for setting up a pro-rape Facebook page. The college’s “Define Statutory” group, which defined itself as “pro-rape, anti-consent”, was condemned by women’s groups, the government and police when it came to light last November.

Mr Abbott won a Political Silver Ernie award for such comments as “What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing …”, at the awards show in Sydney on Thursday night. He was the favourite to win the political category after being nominated this year eight times. Mr Hockey was twice nominated for the political Ernie this year, including his election campaign gaffe: “(Treasurer) Wayne Swan is to surpluses, what Paris Hilton is to celibacy”.

Former David Jones CEO Mark McInnes shared this year’s Industrial Silver Ernie with mining magnate Clive Palmer. Mr McInnes was dishonoured for allegedly telling his former secretary she was “overreacting” after he casually touched her breast. Mr Palmer shared the gong for telling pregnant federal Housing Minister Tanya Plibersek, “you shouldn’t get too excited in your fragile condition”.

The awards provide an interesting commentary on the state of sexism and sex discrimination in Australia. Evidently, there are still widely prevailing problems relating to the existence of sexism and sex discrimination in Australia.

One of the most significant cases of age discrimination in Australia was the case of Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie [1998] HCA 18; 193 CLR 280; 72 ALJR 634; 79 IR 120; 152 ALR 365 (19 March 1998). This matter was heard before the high court. This case highlighted the way in which Australian jurisprudence in this area had lagged in development behind that of the United States because of the early adoption into federal law in the United States of a statute which prohibited age discrimination, namely, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967 , 29 USC §§621-634.

The case was about a restriction which Qantas had over its commercial pilots that they could not fly long distance journeys once they were over the age of 60. The airline claimed that this was because of the levels of alertness, fitness and concentration which are required in order that a person can fly a plane for such long distances. However, Mr Christie argued and it was agreed from medical evidence that he was at an appropriate level of fitness to fly these long distance journeys. He then argued that the effect of the imposition of this rule purely on an age based criteria was discriminatory. The court was divided in its assessment of the matter. Some judges chose to allow the appeal and others denied it.

Some other key age Discrimination Cases:

Bostick Australia Proprietary Ltd v Gorgevski (1992) 36 FLR 20
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1994) 47 FCR 300
Gilshenan v P.D. Mulligan P/L [1995] NSWEOT
Yaxley v Trust Bank of Tasmania (1996) AIRC 960095 TI-1245
Blatchford v Qantas Airways Limited [1997] NSWEOT
Ivory v Grifith University [1997] QADT 4 (30 January 1997)
Qantas Airways Limited v Christie [1998] HCA 18 (19 March 1998), 193 CLR 280
Re McIntyre & Anor [1999] QSC 121 (7 June 1999)
Commonwealth of Australia v HREOC and Bradley [1999] FCA 1524 (4 November 1999)
Hopper & Others v Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2004] QADT 13 (12 May 2004)
Thompson v Big Bert Pty Ltd t/as Charles Hotel [2007] FCA 1978
O’Brien v Crouch [2007] FMCA 1976

Stephanie Rice has now been forced to give back a car worth over $100,000.00 as a result of a homophobic tweet she made. The comments are potentially defamatory, discriminatory and asked to give back her Jaguar which was given to her by the car manufacturer in a sponsorship deal earlier this year.

Rice had tweeted the statement ‘suck on that faggots’ in relation to a win by the Wallabies in South Africa recently which inflamed backlash against her in the gay community and the broader community. Rice is still counting the cost of the tweet. Jaguar Australia’s marketing and public affairs manager Mark Eedle confirmed that the company’s sponsorship of the swimmer has been terminated.

“We made a decision yesterday, and we’ve terminated the agreement with her,” Eedle said. “We will be taking the car that she’s been using back,” said Eedle. Another of Rice’s sponsors, Sun Rice, said it could not comment on its sponsorship of the swimmer at this time.

Famous sporting personalities who are openly gay such as Ian Robertson have denounced the gold medal swimmer as an ‘Idiot’. Her comments have obviously drawn fire from all sections of the gay community. Anecdotally, it is not the first time Rice appears to have suffered as a result of a backlash from a comment which reflects the mind of a young person with some relatively narrow minded views on the world. It is disturbing that a person so revered for her sporting achievements can make a comment which reflects such prejudice.

If Rice had said such things aimed at one person specifically, it is likely that she would have to contend with legal action on the basis of the comments. However, because she was referring to the South African rugby team in general and none of them have complained specifically, it is unlike to become a legal issue. If an employer fired someone and then made such a statement this would also be grounds for a case of discrimination.

What is racial discrimination?

Under the Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, the term “racial discrimination” is defined as:

“any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”

This definition of racial discrimination has been enacted into Australian Law through the commonwealth legislation known as the RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 (Cth). This law make racial discrimination in illegal in a very broad sense. It is one of the rare cases where Australia has signed an international agreement and then implemented that agreement into domestic law through the adoption of domestic legislation which mirrors the terms of the treaty so precisely.

It is however, comforting that the scope of the racial discrimination legislation is so broad, as this means that the legal protection for people affected by racial discrimination is very great and the penalties and consequences for those that are discriminatory towards others on the basis of their race are serious which means that those who are at risk of perpetuating such discrimination are much more careful to ensure that it does not occur. If you think that you may have suffered from discriminatory behavior at work, you should certainly seek legal advice on the matter as you may be forgoing some of the significant rights which the law in Australia for the victims of racial discrimination and a lawyer will be able to advise you on if you have rights in relation to the situation and how to enforce your rights. We have employment lawyers available on-line now to assist you with your enquiry about racial discrimination now.

There are some situations in which workplace harassment occurs. The most common forms of harassment are based on sex, gender, age, racial harassment and religiously based harassment. We have compiled a series of videos which give some common examples of workplace harassment. The first is a very common form of workplace harassment where someone constantly asks for dates to be involved with you romantically. This is often combined with you making a complaint about their conduct to the human resources department of your organisation or to an external authority.

Another classic example of workplace harassment sending emails which are rude or offensive to their viewers. In some cases, people might be too scared to tell the person that their emails are offensive, but they often do actually have the right to reject what they believe is an offensive email.

There is a credible workers compensation lawyer and personal injury attorney who can assist you in this process and if you need to file a lawsuit if you get injured at the hands of a cruel employer. In addition, hiring the services of an experienced workers compensation lawyer will also increase the chance of getting the proper compensation you deserve. If you think that you have been a victim of any form of discrimination or harassment, it’s advisable that you seek legal advice immediately in order to ensure that your rights in this situation are protected and that you will receive compensation where it is lawfully deserved.

It is an all too familiar story, a woman falls pregnant and suddenly her boss is no longer interested in her work. There is gossip around the office. She goes on maternity leave in order to have the child and returns to find that someone else is doing her job or that her position has been made redundant. It may not be openly stated or there may be reasoned used by management which do not actually paint the full picture, but it does often happen that people who fall pregnant have far less career prospects than those that do not take on children.

In NSW it is generally against the law to treat you unfairly or harass you because you are pregnant, in employment; when you get, or try to get, most types of goods or services — for example, from shops, hotels, entertainment venues, banks, lawyers, government departments, doctors or hospitals;
when you rent, or try to rent, accommodation — for example, a unit, house, commercial premises, hotel room or motel room; or when you apply to get into, or are studying in, any State educational institution — State school, college, TAFE or university; and when you try to enter or join a registered club, or when you’re inside one — a registered club includes any club that sells alcohol or has gambling machines.

In terms of rights at work, it is unlawful to not hire you because they think you might become pregnant;
dismiss or retrench you because you are pregnant; harass you, deny you training just because you’re pregnant; stop you being promoted just because you’re pregnant; or not give you the same or a similar job when you return from maternity leave. Generally, if you’ve been working regularly for 12 months with the same employer, you have the right to take maternity leave and return to your job afterwards. If you think that you have been discriminated against in one of these contexts, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kristy Fraser-Kirk, 25, is junior publicist formerly employed by David Jones. She is now suing the company for and the former CEO, Mark McInnes for a total of over $37 million dollars. The company has said that it will vigorously defend the claims. The amount is approximately 5% of the profits of the company for the time that ms Fraser-Kirk was employed in the company. The claim was lodged in the Federal Court of Australia and at present is composed of a 31 page statement of claim which details the sexual activities of the former CEO. Details of how the damages are calculated at present are sketchy, although a normal principle in the award of damages is that you must adequately compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused and it should be quantified in terms of general damages, punitive damages, special damages and any other types of damages which the court sees fit.

In order to prove that she is not simply interested in money for herself, she has given a statement that all of the damages potentially awarded to her will be given to a charity in order to prevent the accusation that she is simply gauging the company for its deep pockets on the back of the sexual harrassment. The case is similar to one where there was a finding against the firm Price Waterhouse Coopers in the Sydney Office where a massive payout was given because of the behaviour of a partner towards a female partner. If the courts do award the amount as stated in the statement of claim it will be the largest payout of this type in Australian legal history. The claim is also seen as a sign that sexual harrassment is rife in the modern Australian Workplace and that employment conditions for women in Australia have not improved significantly in recent years despite the reforms driven by several generations of feminism. It will be another landmark in the history of the Australian legal system if this case is successful.