What we threw out
These are not claims that are false. They are answers the research wrote that WorkOnRecord would not publish, because the sentence said more than the quote behind it actually proved. Several of them are true and badly sourced. They are here so you can judge whether the checking is real, which you cannot do from a site that only shows you what passed.
Read them as notes about our wording, not as findings about the law. If you want the answer to something, the subjects are where it is - everything on this page was kept out of them on purpose.
209 discarded drafts. A further 20 are not shown at all: each was rejected because it put a statement in the wrong organisation’s mouth, and printing it here would repeat that about a real business to make a point about our pipeline.
annual leave14
Employsure states an employer can demand an employee take unpaid leave where a lay-off is included in their employment contract.
Why it was not published: The Employsure quote says an employer can demand unpaid leave called a lay-off but does not state the condition that it applies where a lay-off is included in the employment contract.
The part the quote did not support: where a lay-off is included in their employment contract
What it rested on
An employment contract can’t provide less than the legal minimum entitlements set out in the NES or their award or agreement.
In some circumstances, an employer can demand that an employee takes unpaid leave. This is called a lay-off, and only applies when:
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that shiftworkers are entitled to more than 4 weeks of annual leave each year if their award or enterprise agreement includes shiftwork provisions.
Why it was not published: The quotes require both that the award/agreement includes shiftwork provisions and defines shiftworkers as receiving the extra week, so the claim omits a necessary condition.
The part the quote did not support: if their award or enterprise agreement includes shiftwork provisions
What it rested on
Shiftworkers are entitled to more than 4 weeks of annual leave each year if their award or enterprise agreement:
includes shiftwork provisions, and defines shiftworkers as employees who receive the additional week of annual leave under the NES.
The Fair Work Ombudsman defines shiftworkers as employees who receive the additional week under the National Employment Standards.
Why it was not published: The quote says an award or enterprise agreement defines shiftworkers that way, not the Fair Work Ombudsman itself.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Ombudsman defines
What it rested on
Shiftworkers are entitled to more than 4 weeks of annual leave each year if their award or enterprise agreement:
includes shiftwork provisions, and defines shiftworkers as employees who receive the additional week of annual leave under the NES.
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that under most awards an employee cannot cash out more than 2 weeks of annual leave in any 12 month period.
Why it was not published: The quote states a general 2-week cap but does not mention that it applies under most awards.
The part the quote did not support: under most awards
What it rested on
An employee can't cash out more than 2 weeks in any 12 month period.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 87(1) entitles an employee to 4 weeks of paid annual leave for each year of service.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the 4-week entitlement but do not identify it as section 87(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 87(1)
What it rested on
For each year of service with an employer (other than periods of employment as a casual employee of the employer), an employee is entitled to:
(a) 4 weeks of paid annual leave; or
(b) 5 weeks of paid annual leave, if:
(i) a modern award applies to the employee and defines or describes the employee as a shiftworker for the purposes of the National Employment Standards; or
Fair Work Act 2009 section 87(1) entitles an employee to 5 weeks of paid annual leave where the employee is a shiftworker as defined by an applicable modern award or enterprise agreement.
Why it was not published: The quoted text only mentions a modern award defining the employee as a shiftworker, not an enterprise agreement.
The part the quote did not support: or enterprise agreement
What it rested on
For each year of service with an employer (other than periods of employment as a casual employee of the employer), an employee is entitled to:
(a) 4 weeks of paid annual leave; or
(b) 5 weeks of paid annual leave, if:
(i) a modern award applies to the employee and defines or describes the employee as a shiftworker for the purposes of the National Employment Standards; or
Fair Work Act 2009 section 87(1) entitles an employee to 5 weeks of paid annual leave where the employee qualifies under section 87(3).
Why it was not published: The quotes show 5 weeks applies if a modern award defines the employee as a shiftworker, but no quote mentions section 87(3) or ties that qualification to section 87(3).
The part the quote did not support: where the employee qualifies under section 87(3)
What it rested on
For each year of service with an employer (other than periods of employment as a casual employee of the employer), an employee is entitled to:
(a) 4 weeks of paid annual leave; or
(b) 5 weeks of paid annual leave, if:
(i) a modern award applies to the employee and defines or describes the employee as a shiftworker for the purposes of the National Employment Standards; or
Fair Work Act 2009 section 87(2) provides that paid annual leave accumulates from year to year.
Why it was not published: The quote states the accumulation rule but does not identify it as section 87(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 87(2)
What it rested on
An employee’s entitlement to paid annual leave accrues progressively during a year of service (other than periods of employment as a casual employee of the employer) according to the employee’s ordinary hours of work, and accumulates from year to year.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 86 confines the annual leave Division to employees other than casual employees.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the Division applies to employees other than casual employees but do not identify section 86 or annual leave.
The part the quote did not support: section 86
What it rested on
This Division applies to employees, other than casual employees.
For each year of service with an employer (other than periods of employment as a casual employee of the employer), an employee is entitled to:
Fair Work Act 2009 section 88(2) prohibits the employer from unreasonably refusing to agree to a request to take paid annual leave.
Why it was not published: The quote states the prohibition but does not identify it as section 88(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 88(2)
What it rested on
Paid annual leave may be taken for a period agreed between an employee and his or her employer.
The employer must not unreasonably refuse to agree to a request by the employee to take paid annual leave.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 90(2) requires an employer, when the employment ends, to pay out any period of untaken paid annual leave at the amount that would have been payable had the employee taken that leave.
Why it was not published: The quote states the payout obligation but does not identify it as being in section 90(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 90(2)
What it rested on
If, when the employment of an employee ends, the employee has a period of untaken paid annual leave, the employer must pay the employee the amount that would have been payable to the employee had the employee taken that period of leave.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 92 prohibits cashing out paid annual leave.
Why it was not published: The quotes state paid annual leave must not be cashed out except under sections 93 or 94, but they do not identify that prohibition as section 92.
The part the quote did not support: section 92
What it rested on
Paid annual leave must not be cashed out, except in accordance with:
(a) cashing out terms included in a modern award or enterprise agreement under section 93, or
(b) an agreement between an employer and an award/agreement free employee under subsection 94(1).
Fair Work Act 2009 section 93(2) requires any award or agreement cashing out terms to prevent cashing out of annual leave that would leave the employee with less than 4 weeks accrued annual leave.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the 4-week cashing-out restriction but do not identify it as section 93(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 93(2)
What it rested on
The terms must require that:
(a) paid annual leave must not be cashed out if the cashing out would result in the employee’s remaining accrued entitlement to paid annual leave being less than 4 weeks; and
(b) each cashing out of a particular amount of paid annual leave must be by a separate agreement in writing between the employer and the employee; and
(c) the employee must be paid at least the full amount that would have been payable to the employee had the employee taken the leave that the employee has forgone.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 93(2) requires any award or agreement cashing out terms to require a separate written agreement for each cashing out of annual leave.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the cashing-out terms require a separate written agreement, but no cited quote identifies section 93(2) as the source of that requirement.
The part the quote did not support: section 93(2)
What it rested on
The terms must require that:
(a) paid annual leave must not be cashed out if the cashing out would result in the employee’s remaining accrued entitlement to paid annual leave being less than 4 weeks; and
(b) each cashing out of a particular amount of paid annual leave must be by a separate agreement in writing between the employer and the employee; and
(c) the employee must be paid at least the full amount that would have been payable to the employee had the employee taken the leave that the employee has forgone.
casual employment17
A casual employed immediately before 26 August 2024 could issue a notice under the employee choice pathway from 26 February 2025 if not employed by a small business.
Why it was not published: The quotes condition this ability on the casual being 'eligible'; the claim omits that qualifier, broadening the statement.
The part the quote did not support: A casual employed immediately before 26 August 2024 could issue a notice
What it rested on
If eligible, a casual who was employed immediately before 26 August 2024 could issue a notice under the employee choice pathway:
from 26 February 2025, if not employed by a small business, or
from 26 August 2025, if employed by a small business.
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that under the National Employment Standards casual employees get 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave per year.
Why it was not published: The Fair Work Ombudsman quote only says casual employees 'will soon have' the entitlement, not that they currently get it.
The part the quote did not support: get
What it rested on
Under the National Employment Standards (NES), casual employees get:
10 days paid family and domestic violence leave per year
Casuals are entitled to take carer’s leave, compassionate leave, family and domestic violence leave, and community service leave, all unpaid.
July 18, 2023 | Blogs Boiling point Employee unfairly dismissed for requesting family and domestic violence leave All employees (including part-time and casual employees) will soon have the entitlement to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave per year under the National Employment Standards, replacing the existing entitlement to five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave.
Employsure states casuals are entitled to take family and domestic violence leave unpaid.
Why it was not published: The Employsure quote says '10 days paid family and domestic violence leave per year,' not unpaid, and the unpaid statement comes from fairwork.gov.au, not Employsure.
The part the quote did not support: Employsure states casuals are entitled to take family and domestic violence leave unpaid
What it rested on
Under the National Employment Standards (NES), casual employees get:
10 days paid family and domestic violence leave per year
Casuals are entitled to take carer’s leave, compassionate leave, family and domestic violence leave, and community service leave, all unpaid.
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that for employers other than small business employers, the Casual Employment Information Statement must be provided after every 12 months of employment.
Why it was not published: The quote only says 'for other employers' and does not identify them as employers other than small business employers.
The part the quote did not support: other than small business employers
What it rested on
for other employers – after 6 and 12 months of employment, and then after every 12 months of employment.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 15A(2) requires the absence of a firm advance commitment to be assessed on the basis that a firm advance commitment may exist in a mutual understanding or expectation that is not a term of the contract.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the basis for recognising a firm advance commitment but do not identify section 15A(2) or state that the absence of a firm advance commitment must be assessed.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Act 2009 section 15A(2)
What it rested on
(a) on the basis of the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the employment relationship; and
(b) on the basis that a firm advance commitment can be in the form of the contract of employment or, in addition to the terms of that contract, in the form of a mutual understanding or expectation between the employer and employee not rising to the level of a term of that contract (or to a variation of any such term); and
Fair Work Act 2009 section 15A(2)(c) lists considerations relevant to a firm advance commitment.
Why it was not published: The quotes list considerations but do not identify them as section 15A(2)(c) or as relevant to a firm advance commitment.
The part the quote did not support: section 15A(2)(c)
What it rested on
(i) whether there is an inability of the employer to elect to offer, or not offer, work or an inability of the employee to elect to accept or reject work (and whether this occurs in practice);
(ii) whether, having regard to the nature of the employer’s enterprise, it is reasonably likely that there will be future availability of continuing work in that enterprise of the kind usually performed by the employee;
(iii) whether there are full‑time employees or part‑time employees performing the same kind of work in the employer’s enterprise that is usually performed by the employee;
(iv) whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 15A(2)(c) lists whether the employer can elect to offer or not offer work as a consideration relevant to a firm advance commitment.
Why it was not published: The quotes contain the employer-election consideration but do not identify it as Fair Work Act section 15A(2)(c).
The part the quote did not support: section 15A(2)(c)
What it rested on
(i) whether there is an inability of the employer to elect to offer, or not offer, work or an inability of the employee to elect to accept or reject work (and whether this occurs in practice);
(ii) whether, having regard to the nature of the employer’s enterprise, it is reasonably likely that there will be future availability of continuing work in that enterprise of the kind usually performed by the employee;
(iii) whether there are full‑time employees or part‑time employees performing the same kind of work in the employer’s enterprise that is usually performed by the employee;
(iv) whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 15A(2)(c) lists the likelihood of continuing work of the kind performed as a consideration relevant to a firm advance commitment.
Why it was not published: The quotes contain the future availability of continuing work consideration, but none identifies it as section 15A(2)(c) or ties it to a firm advance commitment.
The part the quote did not support: section 15A(2)(c)
What it rested on
(i) whether there is an inability of the employer to elect to offer, or not offer, work or an inability of the employee to elect to accept or reject work (and whether this occurs in practice);
(ii) whether, having regard to the nature of the employer’s enterprise, it is reasonably likely that there will be future availability of continuing work in that enterprise of the kind usually performed by the employee;
(iii) whether there are full‑time employees or part‑time employees performing the same kind of work in the employer’s enterprise that is usually performed by the employee;
(iv) whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 15A(2)(c) lists whether full-time or part-time employees do the same work as a consideration relevant to a firm advance commitment.
Why it was not published: The cited quote matches the substantive factor but does not identify it as section 15A(2)(c), so the specific statutory citation overreaches.
The part the quote did not support: section 15A(2)(c)
What it rested on
(i) whether there is an inability of the employer to elect to offer, or not offer, work or an inability of the employee to elect to accept or reject work (and whether this occurs in practice);
(ii) whether, having regard to the nature of the employer’s enterprise, it is reasonably likely that there will be future availability of continuing work in that enterprise of the kind usually performed by the employee;
(iii) whether there are full‑time employees or part‑time employees performing the same kind of work in the employer’s enterprise that is usually performed by the employee;
(iv) whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 15A(2)(c) lists whether there is a regular pattern of work as a consideration relevant to a firm advance commitment.
Why it was not published: The quotes show regular pattern of work as item (iv) under section 15A but do not identify it as section 15A(2)(c).
The part the quote did not support: section 15A(2)(c)
What it rested on
(i) whether there is an inability of the employer to elect to offer, or not offer, work or an inability of the employee to elect to accept or reject work (and whether this occurs in practice);
(ii) whether, having regard to the nature of the employer’s enterprise, it is reasonably likely that there will be future availability of continuing work in that enterprise of the kind usually performed by the employee;
(iii) whether there are full‑time employees or part‑time employees performing the same kind of work in the employer’s enterprise that is usually performed by the employee;
(iv) whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee.
15A Meaning of casual employee General rule (1) An employee is a casual employee of an employer only if: (a) the employment relationship is characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work; and (b) the employee would be entitled to a casual loading or a
re are full‑time employees or part‑time employees performing the same kind of work in the employer’s enterprise that is usually performed by the employee; (iv) whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee.
The note to Fair Work Act 2009 section 15A(2) states that, for casual employment, a regular pattern of work does not of itself indicate a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work.
Why it was not published: The quotes contain the note text but none indicates it is specifically the note to section 15A(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 15A(2)
What it rested on
A regular pattern of work does not of itself indicate a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. An employee who has a regular pattern of work may still be a casual employee if there is no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work.
15A Meaning of casual employee General rule (1) An employee is a casual employee of an employer only if: (a) the employment relationship is characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work; and (b) the employee would be entitled to a casual loading or a
Note: A regular pattern of work does not of itself indicate a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work.
The note to Fair Work Act 2009 section 15A(2) states that an employee with a regular pattern of work may still be a casual employee.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the proposition but do not identify it as the note to section 15A(2).
The part the quote did not support: The note to Fair Work Act 2009 section 15A(2)
What it rested on
A regular pattern of work does not of itself indicate a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. An employee who has a regular pattern of work may still be a casual employee if there is no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work.
15A Meaning of casual employee General rule (1) An employee is a casual employee of an employer only if: (a) the employment relationship is characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work; and (b) the employee would be entitled to a casual loading or a
An employee who has a regular pattern of work may still be a casual employee if there is no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 66AAB allows a casual employee to give the employer a written notification that the employee believes they no longer meet the casual employee requirements.
Why it was not published: The quotes state a casual employee may give written notification under 'this section' but do not identify the section as 66AAB.
The part the quote did not support: section 66AAB
What it rested on
A casual employee may give an employer a written notification under this section if:
(a) having regard to subsections 15A(1) to (4) and the employee’s current employment relationship with the employer, the employee believes that the employee no longer meets the requirements of those subsections; and
(i) is a small business employer at the time the notification is given—the employee has been employed by the employer for a period of at least 12 months beginning the day the employment started; or
(ii) is not a small business employer at the time the notification is given—the employee has been employed by the employer for a period of at least 6 months beginning the day the employment started; and
Fair Work Act 2009 section 66AAB requires the employee to have been employed for at least 12 months with a small business employer or at least 6 months with any other employer.
Why it was not published: The quotes support the 12-month/6-month employment conditions but none identifies them as section 66AAB.
The part the quote did not support: section 66AAB
What it rested on
A casual employee may give an employer a written notification under this section if:
(a) having regard to subsections 15A(1) to (4) and the employee’s current employment relationship with the employer, the employee believes that the employee no longer meets the requirements of those subsections; and
(i) is a small business employer at the time the notification is given—the employee has been employed by the employer for a period of at least 12 months beginning the day the employment started; or
(ii) is not a small business employer at the time the notification is given—the employee has been employed by the employer for a period of at least 6 months beginning the day the employment started; and
Fair Work Act 2009 section 86 excludes casual employees from the paid annual leave Division.
Why it was not published: The quotes state a Division excludes casual employees but do not identify it as section 86 or the paid annual leave Division.
The part the quote did not support: section 86 excludes casual employees from the paid annual leave Division
What it rested on
This Division applies to employees, other than casual employees.
This Subdivision applies to employees, other than casual employees.
(c) a casual employee;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 95 excludes casual employees from the paid personal/carer's leave Subdivision.
Why it was not published: The quotes state casual employees are excluded from 'this Subdivision' but do not identify section 95 or the paid personal/carer's leave Subdivision.
The part the quote did not support: section 95
What it rested on
This Division applies to employees, other than casual employees.
This Subdivision applies to employees, other than casual employees.
(c) a casual employee;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 123(1)(c) excludes casual employees from the notice of termination and redundancy pay Division.
Why it was not published: The quotes show casual employees are excluded from a Division/Subdivision but do not identify section 123(1)(c) or the notice/redundancy Division.
The part the quote did not support: section 123(1)(c)
What it rested on
This Division applies to employees, other than casual employees.
This Subdivision applies to employees, other than casual employees.
(c) a casual employee;
general protections11
The Fair Work Commission states that the 21-day limit for a general protections dismissal application is a strict time limit under the law.
Why it was not published: The quote says the relevant time limit is strict but does not state that it is 21 days.
The part the quote did not support: 21-day limit
What it rested on
This is a strict time limit under the law and late applications are generally not accepted.
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that employees have 21 days to lodge a general protections dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission.
Why it was not published: The quote states employees have 21 days to lodge an application after dismissal but does not specify it is a general protections dismissal application.
The part the quote did not support: general protections dismissal application
What it rested on
Employees have 21 days to lodge an application with the Commission, starting from the day after they were dismissed.
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that adverse action includes injuring an employee in their employment, for example not giving an employee their legal entitlements such as pay or leave.
Why it was not published: The quote provides the injuring-an-employee example but does not state that adverse action includes it.
The part the quote did not support: adverse action includes
What it rested on
injuring an employee in their employment (for example, not giving an employee their legal entitlements, such as pay or leave)
Fair Work Act 2009 section 340(1) prohibits a person taking adverse action against another person because that other person has a workplace right.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the prohibition but do not identify the provision as Fair Work Act 2009 section 340(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 340(1)
What it rested on
A person must not take adverse action against another person:
(a) because the other person:
(i) has a workplace right; or
(ii) has, or has not, exercised a workplace right; or
(iii) proposes or proposes not to, or has at any time proposed or proposed not to, exercise a workplace right; or
(b) to prevent the exercise of a workplace right by the other person.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 340(1) prohibits a person taking adverse action against another person because that other person proposes to exercise a workplace right.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the prohibition but do not identify it as Fair Work Act 2009 section 340(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 340(1)
What it rested on
A person must not take adverse action against another person:
(a) because the other person:
(i) has a workplace right; or
(ii) has, or has not, exercised a workplace right; or
(iii) proposes or proposes not to, or has at any time proposed or proposed not to, exercise a workplace right; or
(b) to prevent the exercise of a workplace right by the other person.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 341(1) defines a workplace right as including entitlement to the benefit of a workplace law or instrument.
Why it was not published: The quotes provide the workplace-right definitional language but do not identify it as section 341(1), so the specific citation overreaches.
The part the quote did not support: section 341(1)
What it rested on
A person has a workplace right if the person:
(a) is entitled to the benefit of, or has a role or responsibility under, a workplace law, workplace instrument or order made by an industrial body; or
(b) is able to initiate, or participate in, a process or proceedings under a workplace law or workplace instrument; or
(c) is able to make a complaint or inquiry:
(i) to a person or body having the capacity under a workplace law to seek compliance with that law or a workplace instrument; or
(ii) if the person is an employee—in relation to his or her employment.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 341(1) defines a workplace right as including entitlement to a role or responsibility under a workplace law or instrument.
Why it was not published: The cited quote states a person has a workplace right if they 'has a role or responsibility under' a workplace law or instrument, not an 'entitlement to' such a role or responsibility.
The part the quote did not support: entitlement to a role or responsibility
What it rested on
A person has a workplace right if the person:
(a) is entitled to the benefit of, or has a role or responsibility under, a workplace law, workplace instrument or order made by an industrial body; or
(b) is able to initiate, or participate in, a process or proceedings under a workplace law or workplace instrument; or
(c) is able to make a complaint or inquiry:
(i) to a person or body having the capacity under a workplace law to seek compliance with that law or a workplace instrument; or
(ii) if the person is an employee—in relation to his or her employment.
341 Meaning of workplace right Meaning of workplace right (1) A person has a workplace right if the person: (a) is entitled to the benefit of, or has a role or responsibility under, a workplace law, workplace instrument or order made by an industrial body; or (b) is able to initiate, or participate in, a process or proceedings under a workplace law or workplace instrument; or (c) is able to mak
Fair Work Act 2009 section 342(1) item 2 defines adverse action by a prospective employer against a prospective employee as refusing to employ them or discriminating against them in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered.
Why it was not published: The quoted fragments establish the substantive definition, but no cited quote identifies it as section 342(1) item 2 or as the definition of adverse action.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Act 2009 section 342(1) item 2
What it rested on
a prospective employer against a prospective employee
the prospective employer:
(a) refuses to employ the prospective employee; or
(b) discriminates against the prospective employee in the terms or conditions on which the prospective employer offers to employ the prospective employee.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 365 allows a person who alleges they were dismissed in contravention of Part 3-1 to apply to the FWC to deal with the dispute.
Why it was not published: The quote states the rule but does not identify it as section 365.
The part the quote did not support: section 365
What it rested on
alleges that the person was dismissed in contravention of this Part, the person, or the industrial association, may apply to the FWC for the FWC to deal with the dispute.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 365 allows an industrial association entitled to represent a person who alleges they were dismissed in contravention of Part 3-1 to apply to the FWC to deal with the dispute.
Why it was not published: The quote states the industrial association may apply but does not identify section 365 or the 'entitled to represent' qualifier.
The part the quote did not support: section 365
What it rested on
alleges that the person was dismissed in contravention of this Part, the person, or the industrial association, may apply to the FWC for the FWC to deal with the dispute.
Employsure asserts, regarding general protections, that section 772 of the Fair Work Act lays out prohibited reasons for terminating an employee's contract.
Why it was not published: The quote states the section's prohibited reasons but does not mention general protections.
The part the quote did not support: regarding general protections
What it rested on
Section 772 of the Fair Work Act lays out the following prohibited reasons for terminating an employee’s contract:
long service leave2
Fair Work Act 2009 section 113(3) defines applicable award-derived long service leave terms by reference to terms of an award or State reference transitional award that would have applied to the employee at a test time fixed immediately before the commencement of Part 2-2.
Why it was not published: The quotes define the terms but do not identify section 113(3) or state that the test time is fixed immediately before the commencement of Part 2-2.
The part the quote did not support: section 113(3) ... test time fixed immediately before the commencement of Part 2-2
What it rested on
Applicable award‑derived long service leave terms, in relation to an employee, are:
(a) terms of an award, or a State reference transitional award, that (disregarding the effect of any instrument of a kind referred to in subsection (2)):
(i) would have applied to the employee at the test time (see subsection (3A)) if the employee had, at that time, been in his or her current circumstances of employment; and
(ii) would have entitled the employee to long service leave; and
Fair Work Act 2009 section 61(2)(g) lists long service leave among the matters to which the National Employment Standards minimum standards relate, as Division 9 of Part 2-2.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish long service leave as a matter under Division 9, but do not state the section or Part location.
The part the quote did not support: section 61(2)(g) and Part 2-2
What it rested on
The minimum standards relate to the following matters:
(g) long service leave (Division 9);
minimum employment period15
Employsure's wrongful termination guide states that a contract may require two verbal warnings and a written warning before an employer can justly end employment.
Why it was not published: The cited quote says these warnings 'might include' but does not state that a contract requires them.
The part the quote did not support: a contract may require
What it rested on
While on probation, employees continue to receive the same entitlements as someone who isn’t in a probation period.
These might include giving the employee two verbal warnings and a written warning before being able to justly end their employment.
The minimum employment period is 6 months.
Why it was not published: The quote states the minimum period is 6 months, or 12 months if the employer is a small business, so the unqualified claim overgeneralizes.
The part the quote did not support: The minimum employment period is 6 months
What it rested on
work for at least the minimum employment period before the dismissal (6 months, or 12 months if the employer is a small business) AND
The Fair Work Ombudsman's documented position on the minimum employment period states that an employee on probation hired on a full-time or part-time basis is entitled to accrue and access their paid leave entitlements.
Why it was not published: The cited quote supports the probation leave entitlement, but no quote states this is a documented position on the minimum employment period.
The part the quote did not support: on the minimum employment period
What it rested on
If hired on a full-time or part-time basis, an employee on probation is entitled to accrue and access their paid leave entitlements, such as annual leave and sick leave.
633 Outside work of FWC Members Vice Presidents, Deputy Presidents and Commissioners (1) A Vice President, Deputy President or Commissioner (whether performing duties on a full ‑ time or part ‑ time basis) must not engage in paid work outside the duties of his or her office without the President’s approval.
The Fair Work Ombudsman's documented position on the minimum employment period states that the paid leave entitlements of an employee on probation hired on a full-time or part-time basis include annual leave and sick leave.
Why it was not published: The quote supports leave entitlements for employees on probation but does not mention or establish the 'minimum employment period.'
The part the quote did not support: minimum employment period
What it rested on
If hired on a full-time or part-time basis, an employee on probation is entitled to accrue and access their paid leave entitlements, such as annual leave and sick leave.
633 Outside work of FWC Members Vice Presidents, Deputy Presidents and Commissioners (1) A Vice President, Deputy President or Commissioner (whether performing duties on a full ‑ time or part ‑ time basis) must not engage in paid work outside the duties of his or her office without the President’s approval.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states that for the purpose of unfair dismissal the period of service is relevant.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the period-of-service point but is not cited as coming from the Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states
What it rested on
For the purpose of unfair dismissal it is the period of service rather than the period of employment that is relevant.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states that for the purpose of unfair dismissal the period of employment is not relevant.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the period-of-service point but its source label does not show it is from the Unfair Dismissals Benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states
What it rested on
For the purpose of unfair dismissal it is the period of service rather than the period of employment that is relevant.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states that a regular pattern of hours does not mean that there is a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work.
Why it was not published: The quote states the proposition but is cited only to fwc.gov.au/periods-service-casual-employee, not to the Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states
What it rested on
A regular pattern of hours does not mean that there is a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work.
15A Meaning of casual employee General rule (1) An employee is a casual employee of an employer only if: (a) the employment relationship is characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work; and (b) the employee would be entitled to a casual loading or a specific rate of pay for casual employees under the terms of a fair work instrument if the employee were a casual employee, or the employee is entitled to such a loading or rate of pay under the contract of employment.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 383 sets the minimum employment period at 6 months where the employer is not a small business employer, and at one year where the employer is a small business employer.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the minimum employment periods but do not identify them as being in section 383.
The part the quote did not support: section 383
What it rested on
The minimum employment period is:
(a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:
(i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;
(ii) immediately before the dismissal; or
(b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.
(6AA) Despite subclause (5), sections 66B and 66C as in force immediately before commencement continue to apply after commencement for a period of 6 months from commencement in relation to employment relationships entered into before commencement where the employer is not a small business employer at commencement.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 383 sets the minimum employment period to end at the earlier of when notice of dismissal is given and immediately before the dismissal.
Why it was not published: The quotes contain the provision's text but do not identify it as section 383.
The part the quote did not support: section 383
What it rested on
The minimum employment period is:
(a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:
(i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;
(ii) immediately before the dismissal; or
(b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 382(a) makes completion of at least the minimum employment period a precondition of being protected from unfair dismissal.
Why it was not published: The quote only states a minimum employment period requirement and does not mention section 382(a) or protection from unfair dismissal.
The part the quote did not support: a precondition of being protected from unfair dismissal
What it rested on
the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and
The length of the minimum employment period turns on the definition of a small business employer.
Why it was not published: The quote defines 'small business employer' but says nothing about a minimum employment period or that its length depends on that definition.
The part the quote did not support: The length of the minimum employment period turns on
What it rested on
A national system employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 15 employees at that time.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 23(1) defines a small business employer as a national system employer employing fewer than 15 employees at the relevant time.
Why it was not published: The quote states the small business employer definition but does not identify it as section 23(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The part the quote did not support: section 23(1)
What it rested on
A national system employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 15 employees at that time.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 23(4) requires that, in determining whether an employer is a small business employer in relation to a dismissal, the employee being dismissed and any other employee also being dismissed are counted.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the counting rule but do not identify it as section 23(4) of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The part the quote did not support: section 23(4)
What it rested on
the employees that are to be counted include (subject to paragraph (2)(b)):
(a) the employee who is being dismissed or whose employment is being terminated; and
(b) any other employee of the employer who is also being dismissed or whose employment is also being terminated.
Employsure's wrongful termination guide states that employees applying to the Fair Work Commission for wrongful termination must have worked with the same company for a minimum employment period of at least six months.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the minimum employment period but does not mention the Fair Work Commission or an application process.
The part the quote did not support: employees applying to the Fair Work Commission for wrongful termination
What it rested on
Have worked with the same company for a minimum employment period of at least six months.
Employsure's wrongful termination guide states that employees applying to the Fair Work Commission for wrongful termination must have worked with the same company for a minimum employment period of at least a year if the employer is a small business with fewer than 15 employees.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the minimum employment period condition but does not mention the Fair Work Commission or employees applying to it.
The part the quote did not support: employees applying to the Fair Work Commission for wrongful termination
What it rested on
Have worked with the same company for a minimum employment period of at least a year, if the employer is a small business with fewer than 15 employees.
minimum wage16
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that for an individual convicted of the intentional underpayment criminal offence, the court can impose a maximum of 10 years in prison or a fine, or both.
Why it was not published: The quote states the maximum penalty but does not specify that it applies to an individual convicted of the intentional underpayment criminal offence.
The part the quote did not support: for an individual convicted of the intentional underpayment criminal offence
What it rested on
The court can impose a maximum of 10 years in prison or a fine, or both.
The National Minimum Wage Order 2026 provides that The National Minimum Wage Order 2026 comes into operation on 1 July 2026.
Why it was not published: The quote states 'This order comes into operation on 1 July 2026' but does not name the order as The National Minimum Wage Order 2026.
The part the quote did not support: The National Minimum Wage Order 2026
What it rested on
This order comes into operation on 1 July 2026 and takes effect in relation to a particular employee from the start of the employee’s first full pay period that starts on or after 1 July 2026.
The 1 July 2026 National Minimum Wage rates apply from the first full pay period starting on or after 1 July 2026.
Why it was not published: The quote says only 'These rates' and does not specify that they are the National Minimum Wage rates.
The part the quote did not support: National Minimum Wage
What it rested on
These rates apply from the first full pay period starting on or after 1 July 2026.
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that for most employees the minimum wage is set by the modern award that covers their industry or occupation.
Why it was not published: The cited quote says "the award," not "modern award."
The part the quote did not support: modern award
What it rested on
For most employees, the minimum wage is set by the award that covers their industry or occupation.
Minimum award wages in some modern awards may now be less than the National Minimum Wage.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'some awards' but does not state 'some modern awards'.
The part the quote did not support: modern awards
What it rested on
The minimum award wages in some awards may now be less than the National Minimum Wage.
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that the Fair Work Commission is the national workplace relations tribunal and registered organisations tribunal.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'the Commission' but never names it as the 'Fair Work Commission'.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Commission
What it rested on
A reminder that the Commission is the national workplace relations tribunal and registered organisations tribunal.
We're the Fair Work Ombudsman. Our role is to give you advice and assistance on workplace laws, including on the minimum wage increase.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 293 notes that section 293 is a civil remedy provision.
Why it was not published: The quote says "This section is a civil remedy provision" but does not identify the section as 293.
The part the quote did not support: section 293
What it rested on
An employer must not contravene a term of a national minimum wage order.
This section is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
Fair Work Act 2009 section 294(1) requires a national minimum wage order to set the national minimum wage.
Why it was not published: The quotes state a national minimum wage order must set the national minimum wage but do not identify section 294(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 294(1)
What it rested on
A national minimum wage order:
(a) must set the national minimum wage; and
(b) must set special national minimum wages for all award/agreement free employees in the following classes:
(i) junior employees;
(ii) employees to whom training arrangements apply;
(iii) employees with a disability; and
(c) must set the casual loading for award/agreement free employees.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 294(1) requires a national minimum wage order to set special national minimum wages for junior employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply, and employees with a disability.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the national minimum wage order requirements but do not identify them as section 294(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 294(1)
What it rested on
A national minimum wage order:
(a) must set the national minimum wage; and
(b) must set special national minimum wages for all award/agreement free employees in the following classes:
(i) junior employees;
(ii) employees to whom training arrangements apply;
(iii) employees with a disability; and
(c) must set the casual loading for award/agreement free employees.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 294(3) applies the national minimum wage to all award/agreement free employees who are not junior employees, employees to whom training arrangements apply, or employees with a disability.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive rule but do not identify it as section 294(3).
The part the quote did not support: section 294(3)
What it rested on
The national minimum wage applies to all award/agreement free employees who are not:
(a) junior employees; or
(b) employees to whom training arrangements apply; or
(c) employees with a disability.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 285(2) requires the FWC to review modern award minimum wages and the national minimum wage order and to make a national minimum wage order.
Why it was not published: The quotes support the review and order requirements but do not identify section 285(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 285(2)
What it rested on
The FWC must conduct and complete an annual wage review in each financial year.
(a) must review:
(i) modern award minimum wages; and
(ii) the national minimum wage order; and
(c) must make a national minimum wage order.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 284(1) states the minimum wages objective.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the minimum wages objective but do not identify it as being in section 284(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 284(1)
What it rested on
The FWC must establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account:
(a) the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment growth; and
(c) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and
This is the minimum wages objective.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 284(1) requires the FWC to take into account the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, gender equality, social inclusion, and relative living standards and the needs of the low paid when establishing and maintaining a safety net of fair minimum wages.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention performance, gender equality, and relative living standards and the low paid, but do not mention social inclusion.
The part the quote did not support: social inclusion
What it rested on
The FWC must establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account:
(a) the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment growth; and
(c) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and
This is the minimum wages objective.
284 The minimum wages objective What is the minimum wages objective? (1) The FWC must establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account: (a) the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability,
nimum wages objective What is the minimum wages objective? (1) The FWC must establish and maintain a safety net of fair minimum wages, taking into account: (a) the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity, business competitiveness and viability, inflation and employment growth; and (aa) the need to achieve gender equality, including by ensuring equal remuneration for work of eq
Fair Work Act 2009 section 139(1)(a) permits a modern award to include terms about minimum wages.
Why it was not published: The quotes show only a list item '(a) minimum wages...' but do not state the section number or that it permits modern awards to include such terms.
The part the quote did not support: section 139(1)(a) permits a modern award to include terms about
What it rested on
(a) minimum wages (including wage rates for junior employees, employees with a disability and employees to whom training arrangements apply), and:
(i) skill‑based classifications and career structures; and
(ii) incentive‑based payments, piece rates and bonuses;
Employsure's wrongful termination guide states that the Fair Work Commission sets national employment standards for minimum wage.
Why it was not published: The quote says the Fair Work Commission sets and enforces national employment standards but does not mention minimum wage.
The part the quote did not support: for minimum wage
What it rested on
The Fair Work Commission sets and enforces national employment standards.
Employsure's wrongful termination guide states that the Fair Work Commission enforces national employment standards for minimum wage.
Why it was not published: The quote states the Fair Work Commission sets and enforces national employment standards but does not mention minimum wage.
The part the quote did not support: for minimum wage
What it rested on
The Fair Work Commission sets and enforces national employment standards.
modern award24
In the dispute over the modern award, the Fair Work Ombudsman lists casual employment and superannuation contributions among the minimum entitlements of the National Employment Standards.
Why it was not published: No cited quote mentions a modern award dispute, and the Fair Work Ombudsman quote lists casual employment but not superannuation contributions; the latter appears only in the Employsure quote.
The part the quote did not support: In the dispute over the modern award, the Fair Work Ombudsman lists casual employment and superannuation contributions
What it rested on
Maximum weekly hours Requests for flexible working arrangements Casual employment Parental leave and related entitlements Annual leave
Long service leave Public holidays Superannuation contributions Notice of termination and redundancy pay
The National Employment Standards (NES) are a set of 11 minimum entitlements which must be provided to all national workplace system employees in Australia.
5. Personal/carer’s leave , compassionate leave and unpaid family and domestic violence leave
In the dispute over the modern award, Employsure states the National Employment Standards are a set of 11 minimum entitlements.
Why it was not published: The 11-minimum-entitlements statement is from Fair Work Ombudsman, not Employsure, and no quote mentions a modern award dispute.
The part the quote did not support: In the dispute over the modern award, Employsure states
What it rested on
Maximum weekly hours Requests for flexible working arrangements Casual employment Parental leave and related entitlements Annual leave
Long service leave Public holidays Superannuation contributions Notice of termination and redundancy pay
The National Employment Standards (NES) are a set of 11 minimum entitlements which must be provided to all national workplace system employees in Australia.
5. Personal/carer’s leave , compassionate leave and unpaid family and domestic violence leave
In the dispute over the modern award, Employsure lists personal/carer's leave, compassionate leave and unpaid family and domestic violence leave as the fifth of the National Employment Standards minimum entitlements.
Why it was not published: The quote listing item 5 is from Fair Work Ombudsman, not Employsure, and the Employsure quote lists different entitlements.
The part the quote did not support: Employsure lists personal/carer's leave, compassionate leave and unpaid family and domestic violence leave as the fifth
What it rested on
Maximum weekly hours Requests for flexible working arrangements Casual employment Parental leave and related entitlements Annual leave
Long service leave Public holidays Superannuation contributions Notice of termination and redundancy pay
The National Employment Standards (NES) are a set of 11 minimum entitlements which must be provided to all national workplace system employees in Australia.
5. Personal/carer’s leave , compassionate leave and unpaid family and domestic violence leave
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that modern awards should generally be considered before occupational awards.
Why it was not published: The quote says most awards are industry-based and should be considered before occupational awards, not that modern awards generally should.
The part the quote did not support: modern awards
What it rested on
Most awards are industry-based and should be generally considered before occupational awards.
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that for most employees the minimum wage is set by the modern award that covers their industry or occupation.
Why it was not published: The cited quote says "the award," not "modern award."
The part the quote did not support: modern award
What it rested on
For most employees, the minimum wage is set by the award that covers their industry or occupation.
Minimum award wages in some modern awards may now be less than the National Minimum Wage.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'some awards' but does not state 'some modern awards'.
The part the quote did not support: modern awards
What it rested on
The minimum award wages in some awards may now be less than the National Minimum Wage.
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that other workplace instruments, including an award, cannot exclude the National Employment Standards.
Why it was not published: The quotes state other workplace instruments cannot exclude the NES but do not specify that awards are included.
The part the quote did not support: including an award
What it rested on
Other workplace instruments can't provide for conditions that are less than the National Employment Standards. This includes an:
These also can’t exclude the NES.
Industry specific redundancy entitlements of some modern awards apply instead of the National Employment Standards.
Why it was not published: The quote says only 'some awards,' not 'modern awards,' so the claim adds an unsupported specificity.
The part the quote did not support: modern awards
What it rested on
Some awards have industry specific redundancy entitlements which apply instead of the NES.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 45 notes that Fair Work Act 2009 section 45 is a civil remedy provision.
Why it was not published: The quotes state that 'this section' is a civil remedy provision but do not identify it as section 45.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Act 2009 section 45
What it rested on
A person must not contravene a term of a modern award.
This section is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
Fair Work Act 2009 section 47(1) provides that a modern award applies to an employee where the award covers the employee, the award is in operation, and no other provision of the Act provides or has the effect that the award does not apply.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the award's application conditions but do not identify the specific statutory section 47(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 47(1)
What it rested on
A modern award applies to an employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity if:
(a) the modern award covers the employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity; and
(b) the modern award is in operation; and
(c) no other provision of this Act provides, or has the effect, that the modern award does not apply to the employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 47(1) provides that a modern award applies to an employer where the award covers the employer, the award is in operation, and no other provision of the Act provides or has the effect that the award does not apply.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive rule but do not identify it as section 47(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 47(1)
What it rested on
A modern award applies to an employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity if:
(a) the modern award covers the employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity; and
(b) the modern award is in operation; and
(c) no other provision of this Act provides, or has the effect, that the modern award does not apply to the employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 47(1) provides that a modern award applies to an organisation where the award covers the organisation, the award is in operation, and no other provision of the Act provides or has the effect that the award does not apply.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive rule but do not identify it as section 47(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 47(1)
What it rested on
A modern award applies to an employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity if:
(a) the modern award covers the employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity; and
(b) the modern award is in operation; and
(c) no other provision of this Act provides, or has the effect, that the modern award does not apply to the employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 47(1) provides that a modern award applies to an outworker entity where the award covers the outworker entity, the award is in operation, and no other provision of the Act provides or has the effect that the award does not apply.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive rule but do not identify it as section 47(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 47(1)
What it rested on
A modern award applies to an employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity if:
(a) the modern award covers the employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity; and
(b) the modern award is in operation; and
(c) no other provision of this Act provides, or has the effect, that the modern award does not apply to the employee, employer, organisation or outworker entity.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 56 gives no effect to terms of an award or agreement that contravene section 55.
Why it was not published: The quote states an award or agreement must not exclude the National Employment Standards but does not state section 56 renders contravening terms of no effect or reference section 55.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Act 2009 section 56 gives no effect to terms of an award or agreement that contravene section 55
What it rested on
A modern award or enterprise agreement must not exclude the National Employment Standards or any provision of the National Employment Standards.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 137 gives a term no effect to the extent it contravenes section 136.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the no-effect rule but do not identify it as section 137.
The part the quote did not support: section 137
What it rested on
A modern award must only include terms that are permitted or required by:
(a) Subdivision B (which deals with terms that may be included in modern awards); or
(b) Subdivision C (which deals with terms that must be included in modern awards); or
(c) section 55 (which deals with interaction between the National Employment Standards and a modern award or enterprise agreement); or
(d) Part 2‑2 (which deals with the National Employment Standards).
A term of a modern award has no effect to the extent that it contravenes section 136.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 139(1) lists minimum wages as a matter a modern award may include terms about.
Why it was not published: The quotes show the modern award may include minimum wages but do not state that this is section 139(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 139(1)
What it rested on
A modern award may include terms about any of the following matters:
(a) minimum wages (including wage rates for junior employees, employees with a disability and employees to whom training arrangements apply), and:
(b) type of employment, such as full‑time employment, casual employment, regular part‑time employment and shift work, and the facilitation of flexible working arrangements, particularly for employees with family responsibilities;
(c) arrangements for when work is performed, including hours of work, rostering, notice periods, rest breaks and variations to working hours;
(d) overtime rates;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 139(1) lists type of employment as a matter a modern award may include terms about.
Why it was not published: The quotes support the substantive statement but do not identify it as section 139(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 139(1)
What it rested on
A modern award may include terms about any of the following matters:
(a) minimum wages (including wage rates for junior employees, employees with a disability and employees to whom training arrangements apply), and:
(b) type of employment, such as full‑time employment, casual employment, regular part‑time employment and shift work, and the facilitation of flexible working arrangements, particularly for employees with family responsibilities;
(c) arrangements for when work is performed, including hours of work, rostering, notice periods, rest breaks and variations to working hours;
(d) overtime rates;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 139(1) lists arrangements for when work is performed as a matter a modern award may include terms about.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the modern award may include terms about arrangements for when work is performed, but do not identify this as section 139(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 139(1)
What it rested on
A modern award may include terms about any of the following matters:
(a) minimum wages (including wage rates for junior employees, employees with a disability and employees to whom training arrangements apply), and:
(b) type of employment, such as full‑time employment, casual employment, regular part‑time employment and shift work, and the facilitation of flexible working arrangements, particularly for employees with family responsibilities;
(c) arrangements for when work is performed, including hours of work, rostering, notice periods, rest breaks and variations to working hours;
(d) overtime rates;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 139(1) lists overtime rates as a matter a modern award may include terms about.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish that the Fair Work Act lists overtime rates as a permissible modern award matter, but they do not identify the provision as section 139(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 139(1)
What it rested on
A modern award may include terms about any of the following matters:
(a) minimum wages (including wage rates for junior employees, employees with a disability and employees to whom training arrangements apply), and:
(b) type of employment, such as full‑time employment, casual employment, regular part‑time employment and shift work, and the facilitation of flexible working arrangements, particularly for employees with family responsibilities;
(c) arrangements for when work is performed, including hours of work, rostering, notice periods, rest breaks and variations to working hours;
(d) overtime rates;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 139(1) lists penalty rates as a matter a modern award may include terms about.
Why it was not published: The quotes list overtime rates and other matters but never mention penalty rates, so the specific claim that section 139(1) lists penalty rates is not established.
The part the quote did not support: penalty rates
What it rested on
A modern award may include terms about any of the following matters:
(a) minimum wages (including wage rates for junior employees, employees with a disability and employees to whom training arrangements apply), and:
(b) type of employment, such as full‑time employment, casual employment, regular part‑time employment and shift work, and the facilitation of flexible working arrangements, particularly for employees with family responsibilities;
(c) arrangements for when work is performed, including hours of work, rostering, notice periods, rest breaks and variations to working hours;
(d) overtime rates;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 57(1) is noted to section 47(1).
Why it was not published: The quote discusses section 57 but does not mention section 47(1) or any note referencing it.
The part the quote did not support: is noted to section 47(1)
What it rested on
Section 57 provides that a modern award does not apply to an employee (or to an employer, or an employee organisation, in relation to the employee) in relation to particular employment at a time when an enterprise agreement applies to the employee in relation to that employment.
Employsure asserts that the National Employment Standards, which outline 11 minimum standards for employment, apply to all employees in the national workplace relations system who are not covered by a modern award or registered agreement.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the NES apply to all employees whether or not they are covered by an award or agreement, not only to those not covered.
The part the quote did not support: who are not covered by a modern award or registered agreement
What it rested on
which outlines 11 minimum standards for employment that apply to all employees in the national workplace relations system whether or not they are covered by an award or registered agreement
Who Do National Employment Standards Apply To? All employees in the national workplace relations system under the Fair Work Act are covered, irrespective of their award, agreement or contract (however, only certain entitlements apply to casual employees).
The modern award echoes Employsure's claim that the National Employment Standards are a set of 11 minimum entitlements.
Why it was not published: The quote only establishes Employsure's statement, not that a modern award echoes it.
The part the quote did not support: The modern award echoes Employsure's claim
What it rested on
The National Employment Standards (NES) are a set of 11 minimum entitlements which must be provided to all national workplace system employees in Australia.
The modern award echoes Employsure's claim that the National Employment Standards must be provided to all national workplace system employees in Australia.
Why it was not published: The quote only establishes Employsure's claim about the NES, not that a modern award echoes it.
The part the quote did not support: The modern award echoes
What it rested on
The National Employment Standards (NES) are a set of 11 minimum entitlements which must be provided to all national workplace system employees in Australia.
notice period7
Under Fair Work Act 2009 section 117(3), the minimum period of notice is 1 week for continuous service of not more than 1 year.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the 1-week notice for not more than 1 year but do not identify section 117(3) as the source of that rule.
The part the quote did not support: section 117(3)
What it rested on
Work out the minimum period of notice as follows:
(a) first, work out the period using the following table:
Not more than 1 year 1 week
More than 1 year but not more than 3 years 2 weeks
More than 3 years but not more than 5 years 3 weeks
More than 5 years 4 weeks
Under Fair Work Act 2009 section 117(3), the minimum period of notice is 2 weeks for continuous service of more than 1 but not more than 3 years.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the 2-week notice period but do not identify or mention section 117(3) of the Act.
The part the quote did not support: section 117(3)
What it rested on
Work out the minimum period of notice as follows:
(a) first, work out the period using the following table:
Not more than 1 year 1 week
More than 1 year but not more than 3 years 2 weeks
More than 3 years but not more than 5 years 3 weeks
More than 5 years 4 weeks
Under Fair Work Act 2009 section 117(3), the minimum period of notice is 3 weeks for continuous service of more than 3 but not more than 5 years.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the 3-week notice row but do not identify it as Fair Work Act 2009 section 117(3).
The part the quote did not support: section 117(3)
What it rested on
Work out the minimum period of notice as follows:
(a) first, work out the period using the following table:
Not more than 1 year 1 week
More than 1 year but not more than 3 years 2 weeks
More than 3 years but not more than 5 years 3 weeks
More than 5 years 4 weeks
Under Fair Work Act 2009 section 117(3), the minimum period of notice is 4 weeks for continuous service of more than 5 years.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the 4-week notice period for more than 5 years but do not identify it as section 117(3).
The part the quote did not support: section 117(3)
What it rested on
Work out the minimum period of notice as follows:
(a) first, work out the period using the following table:
Not more than 1 year 1 week
More than 1 year but not more than 3 years 2 weeks
More than 3 years but not more than 5 years 3 weeks
More than 5 years 4 weeks
Fair Work Act 2009 section 117(3)(b) increases the minimum period of notice by 1 week where the employee is over 45 years old and has completed at least 2 years of continuous service at the end of the day the notice is given.
Why it was not published: The quotes show section 117 and paragraph (b) but do not establish the subsection number (3) in the pinpoint citation.
The part the quote did not support: section 117(3)(b)
What it rested on
then increase the period by 1 week if the employee is over 45 years old and has completed at least 2 years of continuous service with the employer at the end of the day the notice is given.
117 Requirement for notice of termination or payment in lieu Notice specifying day of termination (1) An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment unless the employer has given the employee written notice of the day of the termination (which cannot be before the day the notice is given).
r but not more than 3 years 2 weeks 3 More than 3 years but not more than 5 years 3 weeks 4 More than 5 years 4 weeks (b) then increase the period by 1 week if the employee is over 45 years old and has completed at least 2 years of continuous service with the employer at the end of the day the notice is given.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 117(4) excludes periods of employment as a casual employee from the continuous service used to work out the minimum period of notice.
Why it was not published: The quote states the casual-service exclusion but does not identify section 117(4) or mention notice periods.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Act 2009 section 117(4) ... used to work out the minimum period of notice
What it rested on
A reference in this section to continuous service with the employer does not include periods of employment as a casual employee of the employer.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 123(1)(b) disapplies the notice of termination Division where the employee's employment is terminated because of serious misconduct.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the substantive rule but do not identify it as section 123(1)(b).
The part the quote did not support: section 123(1)(b)
What it rested on
This Division does not apply to any of the following employees:
(b) an employee whose employment is terminated because of serious misconduct;
pay slips and records17
Time and wages records cannot be false or misleading.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes restrict changes to correcting errors but do not state that the records cannot be false or misleading.
The part the quote did not support: false or misleading
What it rested on
Time and wages records can’t be:
changed unless the change is to correct an error
Pay slips must record an amount paid to an employee for taking paid family and domestic violence leave as ordinary hours of work, or another kind of payment for performing work.
Why it was not published: The quotes support recording the leave payment as ordinary hours of work but do not state the alternative 'another kind of payment for performing work.'
The part the quote did not support: or another kind of payment for performing work
What it rested on
An amount paid to an employee for taking paid family and domestic violence leave has to be recorded on a pay slip as:
ordinary hours of work, or
Fair Work Act 2009 section 535(2) requires employee records to be in any form prescribed by the regulations.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the records must be in the form prescribed by regulations, but none identifies this requirement as section 535(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 535(2)
What it rested on
The records must:
(a) if a form is prescribed by the regulations—be in that form; and
(b) include any information prescribed by the regulations.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 535(2) requires employee records to include any information prescribed by the regulations.
Why it was not published: The quotes state that records must include prescribed information, but none identifies this requirement as coming from section 535(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 535(2)
What it rested on
The records must:
(a) if a form is prescribed by the regulations—be in that form; and
(b) include any information prescribed by the regulations.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 535(4) notes that the prohibition is a civil remedy provision.
Why it was not published: The cited quote states the prohibition on false or misleading records but does not mention section 535(4) or that the prohibition is a civil remedy provision.
The part the quote did not support: section 535(4) notes that the prohibition is a civil remedy provision
What it rested on
An employer must not make or keep a record for the purposes of this section that the employer knows is false or misleading.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 536(1) notes that the requirement to give a pay slip is a civil remedy provision.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the Fair Work Act pay slip requirement and that this subsection is a civil remedy provision, but do not identify section 536(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 536(1)
What it rested on
An employer must give a pay slip to each of its employees within one working day of paying an amount to the employee in relation to the performance of work.
This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
Fair Work Act 2009 section 536(2) requires a pay slip to be in any form prescribed by the regulations.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish that a pay slip must be in any form prescribed by the regulations, but they do not identify section 536(2) as the source of that requirement.
The part the quote did not support: section 536(2)
What it rested on
The pay slip must:
(a) if a form is prescribed by the regulations—be in that form; and
(b) include any information prescribed by the regulations; and
(c) not include any information prescribed by the regulations in relation to paid family and domestic violence leave; and
(d) comply with any requirements prescribed by the regulations in relation to the reporting of paid family and domestic violence leave.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 536(2) requires a pay slip to include any information prescribed by the regulations.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the pay slip must include prescribed information but do not identify this requirement as section 536(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 536(2)
What it rested on
The pay slip must:
(a) if a form is prescribed by the regulations—be in that form; and
(b) include any information prescribed by the regulations; and
(c) not include any information prescribed by the regulations in relation to paid family and domestic violence leave; and
(d) comply with any requirements prescribed by the regulations in relation to the reporting of paid family and domestic violence leave.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 536(3) is a civil remedy provision.
Why it was not published: The quote states the employer's obligation but does not state or entail that section 536(3) is a civil remedy provision.
The part the quote did not support: section 536(3) is a civil remedy provision
What it rested on
An employer must not give a pay slip for the purposes of this section that the employer knows is false or misleading.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 557C(1) places the burden of disproving an applicant's allegation on the employer where the employer failed to comply with a record-keeping requirement in section 535(1) or (2) in relation to the matter.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the burden-shifting rule for record-keeping/pay-slip failures but do not identify the provision as section 557C(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 557C(1)
What it rested on
(i) by subsection 535(1) or (2) to make and keep a record; or
(iii) by subsection 536(1) or (2) to give a pay slip;
in relation to the matter; and
(c) the employer failed to comply with the requirement;
the employer has the burden of disproving the allegation.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 557C(1) places the burden of disproving an applicant's allegation on the employer where the employer failed to comply with the pay slip requirement in section 536(1) or (2) in relation to the matter.
Why it was not published: The quotes support the burden rule for pay-slip noncompliance but none identifies it as section 557C(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 557C(1)
What it rested on
(i) by subsection 535(1) or (2) to make and keep a record; or
(iii) by subsection 536(1) or (2) to give a pay slip;
in relation to the matter; and
(c) the employer failed to comply with the requirement;
the employer has the burden of disproving the allegation.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 557C(3) lists the civil remedy provisions to which the reversed burden applies.
Why it was not published: The quotes list civil remedy provisions but never mention section 557C(3) or the reversed burden.
The part the quote did not support: section 557C(3)
What it rested on
The civil remedy provisions are the following:
(a) section 44 (which deals with contraventions of the National Employment Standards);
(b) section 45 (which deals with contraventions of modern awards);
(c) section 50 (which deals with contraventions of enterprise agreements);
(e) section 293 (which deals with contraventions of national minimum wage orders);
Fair Work Act 2009 section 557C(3) includes section 44 (National Employment Standards) among the civil remedy provisions to which the reversed burden applies.
Why it was not published: The quotes list section 44 as a civil remedy provision but do not mention section 557C(3) or a reversed burden.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Act 2009 section 557C(3) includes ... among the civil remedy provisions to which the reversed burden applies
What it rested on
The civil remedy provisions are the following:
(a) section 44 (which deals with contraventions of the National Employment Standards);
(b) section 45 (which deals with contraventions of modern awards);
(c) section 50 (which deals with contraventions of enterprise agreements);
(e) section 293 (which deals with contraventions of national minimum wage orders);
Fair Work Act 2009 section 557C(3) includes section 45 (modern awards) among the civil remedy provisions to which the reversed burden applies.
Why it was not published: The quotes show section 45 is a civil remedy provision, but do not mention section 557C(3) or any reversed burden.
The part the quote did not support: section 557C(3) ... to which the reversed burden applies
What it rested on
The civil remedy provisions are the following:
(a) section 44 (which deals with contraventions of the National Employment Standards);
(b) section 45 (which deals with contraventions of modern awards);
(c) section 50 (which deals with contraventions of enterprise agreements);
(e) section 293 (which deals with contraventions of national minimum wage orders);
Fair Work Act 2009 section 557C(3) includes section 50 (enterprise agreements) among the civil remedy provisions to which the reversed burden applies.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish section 50 is a civil remedy provision but do not mention section 557C(3) or the reversed burden.
The part the quote did not support: section 557C(3) includes section 50 ... to which the reversed burden applies
What it rested on
The civil remedy provisions are the following:
(a) section 44 (which deals with contraventions of the National Employment Standards);
(b) section 45 (which deals with contraventions of modern awards);
(c) section 50 (which deals with contraventions of enterprise agreements);
(e) section 293 (which deals with contraventions of national minimum wage orders);
Fair Work Act 2009 section 557C(3) includes section 293 (national minimum wage orders) among the civil remedy provisions to which the reversed burden applies.
Why it was not published: The quotes list section 293 as a civil remedy provision but say nothing about section 557C(3) or any reversed burden.
The part the quote did not support: section 557C(3) includes section 293 ... among the civil remedy provisions to which the reversed burden applies
What it rested on
The civil remedy provisions are the following:
(a) section 44 (which deals with contraventions of the National Employment Standards);
(b) section 45 (which deals with contraventions of modern awards);
(c) section 50 (which deals with contraventions of enterprise agreements);
(e) section 293 (which deals with contraventions of national minimum wage orders);
Employsure's sick leave guide states that the Fair Work Ombudsman recommends a minimum record-keeping period of seven years for pay slips and records.
Why it was not published: The quote states a seven-year record-keeping period but does not specify that it applies to pay slips and records.
The part the quote did not support: for pay slips and records
What it rested on
The Fair Work Ombudsman recommends a minimum record-keeping period of seven years.
personal leave6
Employsure's National Employment Standards guide states that the entitlement to family and domestic violence leave is five days unpaid for both permanent and casual employees per year.
Why it was not published: The Employsure quote says the 5-day unpaid leave was a past entitlement and is no longer available, so it does not establish the claim's present-tense entitlement.
The part the quote did not support: the entitlement to family and domestic violence leave is five days unpaid for both permanent and casual employees per year
What it rested on
All employees are entitled to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave each year. This includes full-time, part-time and casual employees.
Before the introduction of paid family and domestic violence leave, eligible employees could access 5 days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. This leave entitlement is no longer available.
as well as five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave for both permanent and casual employees per year.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 96(2) provides that paid personal/carer's leave accumulates from year to year.
Why it was not published: The quote states the entitlement accumulates from year to year but does not identify section 96(2) as the provision.
The part the quote did not support: section 96(2)
What it rested on
An employee’s entitlement to paid personal/carer’s leave accrues progressively during a year of service (other than periods of employment as a casual employee of the employer) according to the employee’s ordinary hours of work, and accumulates from year to year.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 95 confines the paid personal/carer's leave Subdivision to employees other than casual employees.
Why it was not published: The quote states the subdivision applies to employees other than casual employees, but it does not identify this provision as section 95.
The part the quote did not support: section 95
What it rested on
This Subdivision applies to employees, other than casual employees.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 107(4) makes the entitlement to take leave conditional on complying with section 107.
Why it was not published: The quote establishes that leave entitlement is conditional on complying with 'this section', but none of the cited quotes identifies the provision as section 107(4).
The part the quote did not support: section 107(4)
What it rested on
An employee who has given his or her employer notice of the taking of leave under this Division must, if required by the employer, give the employer evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person that:
(a) if it is paid personal/carer’s leave—the leave is taken for a reason specified in section 97; or
An employee is not entitled to take leave under this Division unless the employee complies with this section.
Section 101(2)(a) requires cashing out terms to preserve a remaining accrued entitlement of at least 15 days.
Why it was not published: The quotes support cashing out terms under section 101 and the 15-day floor, but none identifies subsection 101(2)(a).
The part the quote did not support: Section 101(2)(a)
What it rested on
Paid personal/carer’s leave must not be cashed out, except in accordance with cashing out terms included in a modern award or enterprise agreement under section 101.
paid personal/carer’s leave must not be cashed out if the cashing out would result in the employee’s remaining accrued entitlement to paid personal/carer’s leave being less than 15 days; and
Employsure's National Employment Standards guide states that full-time and part-time permanent employees are not entitled to paid annual or sick leave.
Why it was not published: The quote directly states casual employees are not entitled, and the 'like full-time and part-time permanent employees' phrase does not clearly establish that permanent employees are also not entitled.
The part the quote did not support: full-time and part-time permanent employees are not entitled to paid annual or sick leave
What it rested on
Casual employees are not entitled to paid annual or sick leave, like full-time and part-time permanent employees.
redundancy18
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that employees made redundant after their employer became a small business may be entitled to redundancy pay under the National Employment Standards only if the redundancies that led to the employer becoming a small business happened on or after 15 December 2023.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention the date condition but do not establish it as the only condition for entitlement.
The part the quote did not support: only if
What it rested on
This means that employees who are made redundant after their employer becomes a small business may be entitled to redundancy pay under the NES.
the redundancies that led to the employer becoming a small business happened on or after 15 December 2023.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 119(1) entitles an employee to redundancy pay where the employment is terminated at the employer's initiative because of the employer's insolvency or bankruptcy.
Why it was not published: The quotes list insolvency/bankruptcy as a separate ground for redundancy pay, not as one requiring termination at the employer's initiative.
The part the quote did not support: at the employer's initiative because of the employer's insolvency or bankruptcy
What it rested on
An employee is entitled to be paid redundancy pay by the employer if the employee’s employment is terminated:
(a) at the employer’s initiative because the employer no longer requires the job done by the employee to be done by anyone, except where this is due to the ordinary and customary turnover of labour; or
(b) because of the insolvency or bankruptcy of the employer.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 119(2) sets redundancy pay by a table of redundancy pay periods against continuous service.
Why it was not published: The quotes show the Act's redundancy pay table but do not identify it as section 119(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 119(2)
What it rested on
The amount of the redundancy pay equals the total amount payable to the employee for the redundancy pay period worked out using the following table at the employee’s base rate of pay for his or her ordinary hours of work:
At least 1 year but less than 2 years 4 weeks
At least 9 years but less than 10 years 16 weeks
At least 10 years 12 weeks
Fair Work Act 2009 section 119(2) provides that the redundancy pay period rises from 4 weeks at 1 year to 16 weeks at 9 but less than 10 years.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the redundancy pay table values but none identifies section 119(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 119(2)
What it rested on
The amount of the redundancy pay equals the total amount payable to the employee for the redundancy pay period worked out using the following table at the employee’s base rate of pay for his or her ordinary hours of work:
At least 1 year but less than 2 years 4 weeks
At least 9 years but less than 10 years 16 weeks
At least 10 years 12 weeks
Fair Work Act 2009 section 119(2) provides that the redundancy pay period falls to 12 weeks at 10 years or more.
Why it was not published: The quotes support the 12-week amount for at least 10 years but none identify section 119(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 119(2)
What it rested on
The amount of the redundancy pay equals the total amount payable to the employee for the redundancy pay period worked out using the following table at the employee’s base rate of pay for his or her ordinary hours of work:
At least 1 year but less than 2 years 4 weeks
At least 9 years but less than 10 years 16 weeks
At least 10 years 12 weeks
Fair Work Act 2009 section 119(3) excludes periods of employment as a casual employee from the continuous service used to calculate redundancy pay.
Why it was not published: The quote states the casual-employment exclusion for continuous service but does not identify it as section 119(3) or mention redundancy pay.
The part the quote did not support: section 119(3)
What it rested on
A reference in this section to continuous service with the employer does not include periods of employment as a casual employee of the employer.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 121(1) disapplies the redundancy pay entitlement in section 119 where the employee's continuous service is less than 12 months
Why it was not published: The quotes establish that section 119 does not apply where continuous service is less than 12 months, but they do not identify this provision as section 121(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 121(1)
What it rested on
Section 119 does not apply to the termination of an employee’s employment if, immediately before the time of the termination, or at the time when the person was given notice of the termination as described in subsection 117(1) (whichever happened first):
(a) the employee’s period of continuous service with the employer (other than periods of employment as a casual employee of the employer) is less than 12 months; or
(b) the employer is a small business employer.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 23(1) defines a small business employer as a national system employer that employs fewer than 15 employees at the relevant time.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the small business employer definition but do not identify it as section 23(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 23(1)
What it rested on
A national system employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 15 employees at that time.
(b) a casual employee is not to be counted unless, at that time, the employee is a regular casual employee of the employer.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 23(1) counts casual employees only where they are regular casual employees.
Why it was not published: The quote states casual employees are not counted unless regular, but does not identify that rule as section 23(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 23(1)
What it rested on
A national system employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 15 employees at that time.
(b) a casual employee is not to be counted unless, at that time, the employee is a regular casual employee of the employer.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 120 allows the FWC, on application by the employer, to reduce redundancy pay to a specified amount (which may be nil) where the employer obtains other acceptable employment for the employee.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive reduction provision but none identifies it as section 120.
The part the quote did not support: section 120
What it rested on
(b) the employer:
(i) obtains other acceptable employment for the employee; or
(ii) cannot pay the amount.
On application by the employer, the FWC may determine that the amount of redundancy pay is reduced to a specified amount (which may be nil) that the FWC considers appropriate.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 120 allows the FWC, on application by the employer, to reduce redundancy pay to a specified amount (which may be nil) where the employer cannot pay the amount.
Why it was not published: The quotes provide the operative statutory language but none identifies the provision as section 120.
The part the quote did not support: section 120
What it rested on
(b) the employer:
(i) obtains other acceptable employment for the employee; or
(ii) cannot pay the amount.
On application by the employer, the FWC may determine that the amount of redundancy pay is reduced to a specified amount (which may be nil) that the FWC considers appropriate.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 122(3) removes the redundancy pay entitlement where the employee rejects an offer from another employer on terms substantially similar and, on an overall basis, no less favourable, that recognises service with the first employer and would have produced a transfer of employment.
Why it was not published: The quotes support the no-redundancy pay condition for rejecting a similar service-recognising offer but do not state section 122(3) or that the offer would have produced a transfer of employment.
The part the quote did not support: would have produced a transfer of employment
What it rested on
An employee is not entitled to redundancy pay under section 119 in relation to the termination of his or her employment with an employer (the first employer) if:
(a) the employee rejects an offer of employment made by another employer (the second employer) that:
(i) is on terms and conditions substantially similar to, and, considered on an overall basis, no less favourable than, the employee’s terms and conditions of employment with the first employer immediately before the termination; and
(ii) recognises the employee’s service with the first employer, for the purpose of this Subdivision; and
Fair Work Act 2009 section 123(1) excludes employees engaged for a specified period, task or season from the notice of termination and redundancy pay Division.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the exclusion but do not identify section 123(1) or the named Division.
The part the quote did not support: section 123(1) ... notice of termination and redundancy pay Division
What it rested on
This Division does not apply to any of the following employees:
(a) an employee employed for a specified period of time, for a specified task, or for the duration of a specified season;
(b) an employee whose employment is terminated because of serious misconduct;
(c) a casual employee;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 123(1) excludes employees dismissed for serious misconduct from the notice of termination and redundancy pay Division.
Why it was not published: The quotes show a Division exclusion for serious misconduct but do not state it is section 123(1) or the notice of termination and redundancy pay Division.
The part the quote did not support: section 123(1)
What it rested on
This Division does not apply to any of the following employees:
(a) an employee employed for a specified period of time, for a specified task, or for the duration of a specified season;
(b) an employee whose employment is terminated because of serious misconduct;
(c) a casual employee;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 123(1) excludes casual employees from the notice of termination and redundancy pay Division.
Why it was not published: The quotes state only that 'This Division' excludes casual employees, without identifying it as section 123(1) or the notice of termination and redundancy pay Division.
The part the quote did not support: section 123(1) ... notice of termination and redundancy pay Division
What it rested on
This Division does not apply to any of the following employees:
(a) an employee employed for a specified period of time, for a specified task, or for the duration of a specified season;
(b) an employee whose employment is terminated because of serious misconduct;
(c) a casual employee;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 123(1) excludes certain trainees from the notice of termination and redundancy pay Division.
Why it was not published: The quotes list specified-term, serious misconduct, and casual employees as excluded, but none mention trainees.
The part the quote did not support: excludes certain trainees
What it rested on
This Division does not apply to any of the following employees:
(a) an employee employed for a specified period of time, for a specified task, or for the duration of a specified season;
(b) an employee whose employment is terminated because of serious misconduct;
(c) a casual employee;
Fair Work Act 2009 section 389(1) makes a dismissal a case of genuine redundancy only where the employer complied with any applicable award or agreement consultation obligation.
Why it was not published: The quoted text states the consultation condition but does not identify it as Fair Work Act 2009 section 389(1).
The part the quote did not support: section 389(1)
What it rested on
A person’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy if:
(a) the person’s employer no longer required the person’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise; and
(b) the employer has complied with any obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement that applied to the employment to consult about the redundancy.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair Dismissals Benchbook states that if an employer can prove the requirements of section 389 of the Fair Work Act have been met, the Commission will have no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the substantive statement but is cited from fwc.gov.au/what-genuine-redundancy, not established as the Unfair Dismissals Benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: Unfair Dismissals Benchbook
What it rested on
If an employer can prove that the requirements of s.389 of the Fair Work Act have been met, the Fair Work Commission will have no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
time limit to apply18
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that an employee who thinks they have been unfairly dismissed needs to apply to the Fair Work Commission within 21 days of their dismissal.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'the Commission' but does not name the Fair Work Commission, so that specific name is not established.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Commission
What it rested on
If you think you’ve been unfairly dismissed, you need to apply to the Commission within 21 days of your dismissal.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook cites Fair Work Act 2009 s.394(2)-(3) as the source for extension of time for lodging an application.
Why it was not published: The cited quote is from an FWC webpage about extension of time but does not identify the Unfair dismissals benchbook as the source making this citation.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states that ignorance of the timeframe for lodgment is not an exceptional circumstance.
Why it was not published: The quote establishes the statement but does not identify it as coming from the Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook
What it rested on
Ignorance of the timeframe for lodgment is not an exceptional circumstance.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states that exceptional circumstances are circumstances that are out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon.
Why it was not published: The quotes support the definition but are not shown to come from the Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states
What it rested on
These are circumstances that are:
out of the ordinary course
unusual
special, or
uncommon.
The Fair Work Commission states that the death of a family member is an example of exceptional circumstances that may extend the dismissal application deadline.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention extending 'the deadline' but do not specify that it is a dismissal application deadline.
The part the quote did not support: dismissal application deadline
What it rested on
We may extend the deadline if ‘exceptional circumstances’ caused the delay. Examples of exceptional circumstances are:
serious illness
the death of a family member
The Fair Work Commission states that a delay or error by a lawyer or paid agent is an example of exceptional circumstances that may extend the dismissal application deadline.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes list only serious illness and death of a family member as examples, not lawyer or paid agent error.
The part the quote did not support: a delay or error by a lawyer or paid agent is an example
What it rested on
We may extend the deadline if ‘exceptional circumstances’ caused the delay. Examples of exceptional circumstances are:
serious illness
the death of a family member
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states that a late lodgment of an application due to representative error may be grounds for an extension of time.
Why it was not published: The quote states the fact, but its cited source is an FWC webpage, not specifically identified as the Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states
What it rested on
A late lodgment of an application due to representative error may be grounds for an extension of time.
The time limit to apply under Fair Work Act 2009 section 394(3) can be extended by the FWC only if the FWC is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the FWC may allow a further period if satisfied there are exceptional circumstances, but none identifies this as section 394(3) of the Fair Work Act.
The part the quote did not support: section 394(3)
What it rested on
The FWC may allow a further period for the application to be made by a person under subsection (1) if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:
(a) the reason for the delay; and
(b) whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect; and
(c) any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and
(d) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(e) the merits of the application; and
(f) fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.
The time limit to apply under Fair Work Act 2009 section 394(3) requires the FWC to take into account the reason for the delay, when the person became aware of the dismissal, action taken to dispute the dismissal, prejudice to the employer, the merits, and fairness as between the person and others in a similar position.
Why it was not published: The quotes list the exact factors but do not identify the provision as section 394(3), so the specific statutory citation is unsupported.
The part the quote did not support: section 394(3)
What it rested on
The FWC may allow a further period for the application to be made by a person under subsection (1) if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:
(a) the reason for the delay; and
(b) whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect; and
(c) any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and
(d) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(e) the merits of the application; and
(f) fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 366(1) allows a general protections application involving dismissal under section 365 to be made within a further period as the FWC allows under section 366(2).
Why it was not published: The quotes state the same time-limit rule but do not identify the specific section numbers 366(1) or 366(2).
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Act 2009 section 366(1) ... section 366(2)
What it rested on
An application under section 365 must be made:
(a) within 21 days after the alleged dismissal took effect; or
(b) within such further period as the FWC allows under subsection (2).
Fair Work Act 2009 section 366(2) permits the FWC to allow a further period for a general protections dismissal application only if the FWC is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances.
Why it was not published: The quotes support the discretionary extension conditioned on exceptional circumstances, but do not identify section 366(2) or tie it to a general protections dismissal application.
The part the quote did not support: section 366(2) ... general protections dismissal application
What it rested on
The FWC may allow a further period if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:
(a) the reason for the delay; and
(b) any action taken by the person to dispute the alleged dismissal; and
(c) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(d) the merits of the application; and
(e) fairness as between the person and other persons in a like position.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 366(2) requires the FWC to take into account the reason for the delay when deciding whether exceptional circumstances exist.
Why it was not published: The quoted text supports the substantive requirement but does not identify it as section 366(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 366(2)
What it rested on
The FWC may allow a further period if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:
(a) the reason for the delay; and
(b) any action taken by the person to dispute the alleged dismissal; and
(c) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(d) the merits of the application; and
(e) fairness as between the person and other persons in a like position.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 366(2) requires the FWC to take into account action taken to dispute the alleged dismissal when deciding whether exceptional circumstances exist.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substance of the rule but do not identify it as Fair Work Act 2009 section 366(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 366(2)
What it rested on
The FWC may allow a further period if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:
(a) the reason for the delay; and
(b) any action taken by the person to dispute the alleged dismissal; and
(c) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(d) the merits of the application; and
(e) fairness as between the person and other persons in a like position.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 366(2) requires the FWC to take into account prejudice to the employer when deciding whether exceptional circumstances exist.
Why it was not published: The quotes show the FWC must take into account prejudice to the employer, but none identifies this provision as section 366(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 366(2)
What it rested on
The FWC may allow a further period if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:
(a) the reason for the delay; and
(b) any action taken by the person to dispute the alleged dismissal; and
(c) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(d) the merits of the application; and
(e) fairness as between the person and other persons in a like position.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 366(2) requires the FWC to take into account fairness as between the person and others in a like position when deciding whether exceptional circumstances exist.
Why it was not published: The quotes list the fairness factor for exceptional circumstances but do not identify it as section 366(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 366(2)
What it rested on
The FWC may allow a further period if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:
(a) the reason for the delay; and
(b) any action taken by the person to dispute the alleged dismissal; and
(c) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(d) the merits of the application; and
(e) fairness as between the person and other persons in a like position.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook records a case about the time limit to apply.
Why it was not published: The quote describes a late application case but does not state it comes from the Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook
What it rested on
The employee lodged their application 6 months late in the incorrect jurisdiction. After the employee discovered that her first application was lodged in the wrong jurisdiction she took a further 10 months to lodge an application with the Commission. It was found that no exceptional circumstances existed.
In the case recorded in the Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook, an application was lodged 6 months late in the incorrect jurisdiction with respect to the time limit to apply.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the late incorrect-jurisdiction application, but the cited source label does not establish that this case is recorded in the Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook
What it rested on
The employee lodged their application 6 months late in the incorrect jurisdiction. After the employee discovered that her first application was lodged in the wrong jurisdiction she took a further 10 months to lodge an application with the Commission. It was found that no exceptional circumstances existed.
In the case recorded in the Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook, no exceptional circumstances were found to exist with respect to the time limit to apply.
Why it was not published: The quote supports that no exceptional circumstances were found, but it does not identify the case as recorded in the Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook
What it rested on
The employee lodged their application 6 months late in the incorrect jurisdiction. After the employee discovered that her first application was lodged in the wrong jurisdiction she took a further 10 months to lodge an application with the Commission. It was found that no exceptional circumstances existed.
unfair dismissal20
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair Dismissals Benchbook states that the high income threshold is $190,100.
Why it was not published: The cited quote is from fwc.gov.au/high-income-threshold and does not show the Unfair Dismissals Benchbook states this.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Commission's Unfair Dismissals Benchbook states
What it rested on
The high income threshold is currently $190,100 .[1] This figure is adjusted annually on 1 July.[2]
[1] This figure applies from 1 July 2026.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair Dismissals Benchbook states that for a dismissal which took effect on or before 30 June 2026 the high income threshold was $183,100.
Why it was not published: The quote states the threshold fact but is not marked as coming from the Unfair Dismissals Benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair Dismissals Benchbook states
What it rested on
For a dismissal which took effect on or before 30 June 2026 the high income threshold was $183,100.[3]
The Fair Work Commission states that late applications in unfair dismissal matters are generally not accepted.
Why it was not published: The Fair Work Commission quote addresses general protections dismissal, not unfair dismissal matters.
The part the quote did not support: unfair dismissal matters
What it rested on
This is a strict time limit under the law and late applications are generally not accepted. You can request an extension of time in exceptional circumstances; however, most (about 80%) are denied.
Employees should make their complaint within 21 days of termination. After this period, complaints are unlikely to be reviewed by the board.
The Fair Work Commission states that most requests for an extension of time in unfair dismissal matters are denied.
Why it was not published: The cited Fair Work Commission quote states most extension requests are denied but in the context of general protections, not unfair dismissal matters.
The part the quote did not support: in unfair dismissal matters
What it rested on
This is a strict time limit under the law and late applications are generally not accepted. You can request an extension of time in exceptional circumstances; however, most (about 80%) are denied.
Employees should make their complaint within 21 days of termination. After this period, complaints are unlikely to be reviewed by the board.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair Dismissals Benchbook states there is no rule that an employee must receive three written warnings.
Why it was not published: The quote establishes the three-warnings statement but its cited source is fwc.gov.au/warnings-unsatisfactory-performance, not the Unfair Dismissals Benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair Dismissals Benchbook
What it rested on
There is no legislative requirement specifying that an employee must be given a certain number of written warnings before being dismissed for poor performance. For example, there is no rule that an employee must receive three written warnings.
The Fair Work Commission states that examples of 'harsh', 'unjust' and 'unreasonable' dismissal are explained in section 387 of the Fair Work Act.
Why it was not published: The quote only says 'This is explained in section 387' without stating or entailing that examples of harsh, unjust and unreasonable dismissal are explained there.
The part the quote did not support: examples of 'harsh', 'unjust' and 'unreasonable' dismissal
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that a small business is defined as any business with fewer than 15 employees for the purpose of the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
Why it was not published: The quote states the small business definition but does not tie it to the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
The part the quote did not support: for the purpose of the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code
What it rested on
A small business is defined as any business with fewer than 15 employees.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 386(2) provides that a person has not been dismissed where employment under a contract for a specified period, task or season ended at that point.
Why it was not published: The quoted Fair Work Act material states the substantive rule but does not identify section 386(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 386(2)
What it rested on
However, a person has not been dismissed if:
(a) the person was employed under a contract of employment for a specified period of time, for a specified task, or for the duration of a specified season, and the employment has terminated at the end of the period, on completion of the task, or at the end of the season; or
(c) the person was demoted in employment but:
(i) the demotion does not involve a significant reduction in his or her remuneration or duties; and
(ii) he or she remains employed with the employer that effected the demotion.
A dismissal doesn’t happen when an employee: is demoted without a significant reduction in duties or pay and remains employed was employed under a contract for a specified period, task or season had a training arrangement that ended when it said it would end.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 386(2) provides that a person has not been dismissed where a training arrangement ended.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes list other exclusions from dismissal under section 386(2) but none mentions a training arrangement ending.
The part the quote did not support: where a training arrangement ended
What it rested on
However, a person has not been dismissed if:
(a) the person was employed under a contract of employment for a specified period of time, for a specified task, or for the duration of a specified season, and the employment has terminated at the end of the period, on completion of the task, or at the end of the season; or
(c) the person was demoted in employment but:
(i) the demotion does not involve a significant reduction in his or her remuneration or duties; and
(ii) he or she remains employed with the employer that effected the demotion.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 386(2) provides that a person has not been dismissed where a demotion did not involve a significant reduction in remuneration or duties and the person remains employed.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the demotion exception but do not identify it as section 386(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 386(2)
What it rested on
However, a person has not been dismissed if:
(a) the person was employed under a contract of employment for a specified period of time, for a specified task, or for the duration of a specified season, and the employment has terminated at the end of the period, on completion of the task, or at the end of the season; or
(c) the person was demoted in employment but:
(i) the demotion does not involve a significant reduction in his or her remuneration or duties; and
(ii) he or she remains employed with the employer that effected the demotion.
use of a training agreement and your employment was terminated at the end of the training arrangement; or you were demoted in employment, but the demotion does not involve a significant reduction in remuneration or duties and you are still employed by the employer who demoted you.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 387 requires the FWC, in considering whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, to take into account whether there was a valid reason related to capacity or conduct.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the FWC must take into account a valid reason related to capacity or conduct, but none identifies this as section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The part the quote did not support: section 387
What it rested on
In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
Fair Work Act 2009 section 387 requires the FWC, in considering whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, to take into account whether the person was notified of the valid reason related to capacity or conduct.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the FWC's duty to consider notification of the valid reason, but none identifies section 387 as the source.
The part the quote did not support: section 387
What it rested on
In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
Fair Work Act 2009 section 392(6) measures remuneration over the 26 weeks immediately before the dismissal.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention subsection (6) and the 26-week period but do not state that it measures remuneration.
The part the quote did not support: section 392(6) measures remuneration over the 26 weeks immediately before the dismissal
What it rested on
The amount ordered by the FWC to be paid to a person under subsection (1) must not exceed the lesser of:
(a) the amount worked out under subsection (6); and
(b) half the amount of the high income threshold immediately before the dismissal.
(whichever is higher) for any period of employment with the employer during the 26 weeks immediately before the dismissal; and
Employsure asserts, regarding unfair dismissal, that a contract or employment agreement will normally clarify the steps an employer must take before terminating an employee.
Why it was not published: The cited quote and its source are about wrongful termination, not unfair dismissal.
The part the quote did not support: regarding unfair dismissal
What it rested on
A contract or employment agreement will normally clarify the steps you must take before terminating an employee. These might include giving the employee two verbal warnings and a written warning before being able to justly end their employment.
Employsure asserts, regarding unfair dismissal, that the steps an employer must take before terminating an employee might include giving the employee two verbal warnings and a written warning before being able to justly end their employment.
Why it was not published: The quote is from a wrongful termination guide and does not mention unfair dismissal.
The part the quote did not support: regarding unfair dismissal
What it rested on
A contract or employment agreement will normally clarify the steps you must take before terminating an employee. These might include giving the employee two verbal warnings and a written warning before being able to justly end their employment.
Employsure asserts that for unfair dismissal, employees should make their complaint within 21 days of termination.
Why it was not published: The quote states a 21-day complaint timeframe for termination but does not specify unfair dismissal.
The part the quote did not support: for unfair dismissal
What it rested on
Employees should make their complaint within 21 days of termination. After this period, complaints are unlikely to be reviewed by the board.
Employsure asserts that for unfair dismissal, complaints made more than 21 days after termination are unlikely to be reviewed by the board.
Why it was not published: The quote mentions complaints after termination generally but does not specify unfair dismissal.
The part the quote did not support: unfair dismissal
What it rested on
Employees should make their complaint within 21 days of termination. After this period, complaints are unlikely to be reviewed by the board.
Regarding unfair dismissal, Employsure asserts that the Fair Work Commission has the powers to investigate workplace complaints concerning a variety of issues.
Why it was not published: The quote says only 'The Commission' and does not identify it as the Fair Work Commission or tie it to unfair dismissal.
The part the quote did not support: Fair Work Commission
What it rested on
The Commission has the powers to investigate workplace complaints concerning a variety of issues.
Employsure asserts, regarding unfair dismissal, that the Fair Work Commission sets national employment standards.
Why it was not published: The quote supports that Employsure states the FWC sets/enforces national employment standards, but it does not establish the assertion was made regarding unfair dismissal; the cited source is a wrongful termination guide.
The part the quote did not support: regarding unfair dismissal
What it rested on
The Fair Work Commission sets and enforces national employment standards.
Employsure asserts, regarding unfair dismissal, that the Fair Work Commission enforces national employment standards.
Why it was not published: The cited quote makes no mention of unfair dismissal; it comes from a wrongful termination guide.
The part the quote did not support: regarding unfair dismissal
What it rested on
The Fair Work Commission sets and enforces national employment standards.
unpaid trial8
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that a person does not need to be paid for the unpaid trial that was a brief trial reasonable to demonstrate an applicant's skills.
Why it was not published: The quote states only that Jack's specific brief trial did not require pay, not a general rule that any person in such a trial need not be paid.
The part the quote did not support: a person
What it rested on
Jack's brief trial was reasonable to demonstrate his skills and he does not need to be paid for the trial.
The Fair Work Act 2009 section 12 definition of a vocational placement states that a vocational placement is a placement undertaken with an employer.
Why it was not published: The quotes define vocational placement as undertaken with an employer but do not identify the definition as being in section 12.
The part the quote did not support: section 12
What it rested on
vocational placement means a placement that is:
(a) undertaken with an employer for which a person is not entitled to be paid any remuneration; and
(b) undertaken as a requirement of an education or training course; and
(c) authorised under a law or an administrative arrangement of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
The Fair Work Act 2009 section 12 definition of a vocational placement states that a vocational placement is one for which a person is not entitled to be paid any remuneration.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the vocational placement definition but none identifies it as being in section 12.
The part the quote did not support: section 12
What it rested on
vocational placement means a placement that is:
(a) undertaken with an employer for which a person is not entitled to be paid any remuneration; and
(b) undertaken as a requirement of an education or training course; and
(c) authorised under a law or an administrative arrangement of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
The Fair Work Act 2009 section 12 definition of a vocational placement states that a vocational placement is undertaken as a requirement of an education or training course.
Why it was not published: The quotes define vocational placement and include the education-or-training-course requirement, but none of the cited quotes states that this definition appears in section 12 of the Fair Work Act.
The part the quote did not support: section 12
What it rested on
vocational placement means a placement that is:
(a) undertaken with an employer for which a person is not entitled to be paid any remuneration; and
(b) undertaken as a requirement of an education or training course; and
(c) authorised under a law or an administrative arrangement of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
Under the Fair Work Act, a vocational placement is allowed to be unpaid if: there is no entitlement for the student to be paid for their work the placement is a requirement of an education or training course the placement is lawful (such as approved courses offered by training bodies, colleges, universities and schools).
The Fair Work Act 2009 section 12 definition of a vocational placement states that a vocational placement is authorised under a law or administrative arrangement of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
Why it was not published: The quotes show the Fair Work Act 2009 definition text, but none identify it as section 12.
The part the quote did not support: section 12
What it rested on
vocational placement means a placement that is:
(a) undertaken with an employer for which a person is not entitled to be paid any remuneration; and
(b) undertaken as a requirement of an education or training course; and
(c) authorised under a law or an administrative arrangement of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 15AA(2) requires the totality of the relationship to be considered, having regard not only to the terms of the contract governing the relationship but also to other factors including how the contract is performed in practice.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the totality and practical-performance language but do not identify it as subsection (2); they only show section 15AA and subsection (1).
The part the quote did not support: section 15AA(2)
What it rested on
(a) the totality of the relationship between the individual and the person must be considered; and
(b) in considering the totality of the relationship between the individual and the person, regard must be had not only to the terms of the contract governing the relationship, but also to other factors relating to the totality of the relationship including, but not limited to, how the contract is performed in practice.
15AA Determining the ordinary meanings of employee and employer (1) For the purposes of this Act, whether an individual is an employee of a person within the ordinary meaning of that expression, or whether a person is an employer of an individual within the ordinary meaning of that expression, is
individual and the person must be considered; and (b) in considering the totality of the relationship between the individual and the person, regard must be had not only to the terms of the contract governing the relationship, but also to other factors relating to the totality of the relationship including, but not limited to, how the contract is performed in practice.
JobWatch states that job seekers believe an employer is legally entitled to get applicants to work for a trial period without pay.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'they believe' but does not identify who 'they' are as job seekers.
The part the quote did not support: job seekers
What it rested on
they believe that an employer is legally entitled to get applicants to work for a trial period without pay; or
JobWatch states that the belief that an employer is legally entitled to get applicants to work for a trial period without pay is one of the main reasons job seekers are willing to undertake unpaid trial work.
Why it was not published: The quote states the belief itself but does not establish that it is one of the main reasons for willingness to undertake unpaid trial work.
The part the quote did not support: one of the main reasons
What it rested on
they believe that an employer is legally entitled to get applicants to work for a trial period without pay; or
warnings before dismissal16
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states that there is no rule that an employee must receive three written warnings.
Why it was not published: The quote establishes the no-three-warnings rule but its source label does not show it is from the Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: Unfair dismissals benchbook
What it rested on
There is no legislative requirement specifying that an employee must be given a certain number of written warnings before being dismissed for poor performance. For example, there is no rule that an employee must receive three written warnings.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook cites Fair Work Act 2009 s.387(e) as the source for when warnings are relevant.
Why it was not published: The quotes come from fwc.gov.au/warnings-unsatisfactory-performance, which is not identified as the Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook
What it rested on
See Fair Work Act 2009 s.387(e)
Warnings become relevant when an employee is dismissed for unsatisfactory performance.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states that a warning must identify the relevant aspect of the employee's performance which is of concern to the employer.
Why it was not published: The quote text supports the warning rule but its source label does not establish that it is from the Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook
What it rested on
Warnings must identify the relevant aspect of the employee's performance which is of concern to the employer.
The Fair Work Commission gives as an example firing an employee with or without warning for their behaviour.
Why it was not published: The cited quote includes the firing phrase but does not state the Fair Work Commission gives it as an example.
The part the quote did not support: gives as an example
What it rested on
‘Dismissal’ means the employer telling the employee they no longer have a job.
fire an employee with or without warning for their behaviour
Fair Work Act 2009 section 387(e) applies to dismissals related to unsatisfactory performance.
Why it was not published: The quote states the unsatisfactory-performance warning criterion but does not identify it as section 387(e).
The part the quote did not support: section 387(e)
What it rested on
if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and
Fair Work Act 2009 section 387(e) requires the FWC to take into account whether the person had been warned about the unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal.
Why it was not published: The quote states the criterion but does not identify it as section 387(e) or that the FWC is required to consider it.
The part the quote did not support: section 387(e) requires the FWC to take into account
What it rested on
if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and
Fair Work Act 2009 section 387 frames warning as one of eight matters the FWC must take into account in considering whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, alongside valid reason, notification of the reason, opportunity to respond, refusal of a support person, employer size, absence of dedicated human resource management expertise, and any other relevant matters.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes do not mention warnings or several of the listed factors; they only quote the introductory requirement and factors (a), (f), (g), and (h).
The part the quote did not support: frames warning as one of eight matters
What it rested on
In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.
Fair Work Act 2009 section 387(b) and (c) require the FWC to take into account whether the person was notified of the valid reason for dismissal.
Why it was not published: The quoted paragraphs list factors (b) and (c), but do not state section 387 or impose an FWC obligation to take them into account.
The part the quote did not support: require the FWC to take into account
What it rested on
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
Fair Work Act 2009 section 387(b) and (c) require the FWC to take into account whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to their capacity or conduct.
Why it was not published: The quotes show paragraph (c) requires considering an opportunity to respond, while paragraph (b) requires considering whether the person was notified of the reason.
The part the quote did not support: section 387(b) and (c) require ... whether the person was given an opportunity to respond
What it rested on
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
387 Criteria for considering harshness etc. In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account: (a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the
rson’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and (b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and (c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and (d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and (e
Fair Work Act 2009 section 385(b) makes a dismissal unfair only where the FWC is satisfied it was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
Why it was not published: The quotes contain the subsection (b) language but never identify it as section 385, so the specific statutory citation overreaches the quoted evidence.
The part the quote did not support: section 385(b)
What it rested on
A person has been unfairly dismissed if the FWC is satisfied that:
(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and
The section 387 warning consideration operates as an input to the evaluative judgment of whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable rather than as a freestanding obligation.
Why it was not published: The quotes only state the harsh, unjust or unreasonable criterion and do not mention section 387 warnings or their role.
The part the quote did not support: the section 387 warning consideration operates as an input to the evaluative judgment... rather than as a freestanding obligation
What it rested on
A person has been unfairly dismissed if the FWC is satisfied that:
(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and
Employsure's wrongful termination guide states that the steps an employment contract requires before terminating an employee might include giving the employee two verbal warnings and a written warning before being able to justly end their employment.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'These might include' warnings but does not state that those are steps an employment contract requires.
The part the quote did not support: steps an employment contract requires before terminating an employee
What it rested on
These might include giving the employee two verbal warnings and a written warning before being able to justly end their employment.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states that industrial tribunals over the years have consistently upheld unfair dismissal claims where an employee has not had an opportunity to respond to performance concerns.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the statement's content but its source label does not establish that it comes from the named Unfair dismissals benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook
What it rested on
However, industrial tribunals over the years have consistently upheld unfair dismissal claims where an employee has not had an opportunity to respond to performance concerns or to improve their performance over a reasonable period of time.
The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states that industrial tribunals over the years have consistently upheld unfair dismissal claims where an employee has not had an opportunity to improve their performance over a reasonable period of time.
Why it was not published: The quote is from fwc.gov.au/warnings-unsatisfactory-performance, not identified as the Unfair Dismissals Benchbook.
The part the quote did not support: The Fair Work Commission's Unfair dismissals benchbook states
What it rested on
However, industrial tribunals over the years have consistently upheld unfair dismissal claims where an employee has not had an opportunity to respond to performance concerns or to improve their performance over a reasonable period of time.
The Fair Work Ombudsman gives an example of an employee dismissed for performance who was surprised because she hadn't been given any warnings or feedback about her performance.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention Josie's surprise at not receiving performance feedback and her unfair dismissal eligibility, but they do not state she was dismissed for performance.
The part the quote did not support: dismissed for performance
What it rested on
Josie is surprised by this as she hasn’t been given any warnings or feedback about her performance.
Josie checks the Commission’s unfair dismissal eligibility quiz and learns she is eligible to lodge an unfair dismissal application.
The Fair Work Ombudsman states that the employee who was dismissed for performance and was surprised by lack of warnings learns she is eligible to lodge an unfair dismissal application.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention performance-related feedback and unfair dismissal eligibility, but do not state she was dismissed for performance.
The part the quote did not support: dismissed for performance
What it rested on
Josie is surprised by this as she hasn’t been given any warnings or feedback about her performance.
Josie checks the Commission’s unfair dismissal eligibility quiz and learns she is eligible to lodge an unfair dismissal application.