Workplace Law Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Workplace Law - Assignment Example Both parties have duties and rights under a common law agreement. In the case at hand, the employer first took Jane into service without any written documents. The only contract that existed between Jane and TMMS was based on a verbal discussion between the owner and Jane. However following the reorientation of the business, the owner decided to introduce individual contracts that applied to each employee in a â€Å"take it or leave it† situation. 1Though the intent of the owner seems to have been to outsource the functions of the employees to them but in offering a â€Å"take it or leave it† contractual agreement, the owner has initiated the AWA (Australian Workplace Agreement) laws. Moreover in case that a dispute arises between an employer and an employee in a situation where no written contracts are available, the common law of Australia overrides any derogatory treatment condition already agreed upon. The same principle applies equally well to written contracts and even if employer and employee agree to terms that are derogatory to either party, the resolution of a dispute would be carried out according to Australian common law2. Hence it can be clearly stated that the current situation where Jane and TMMS’s owner Sam were in a contractual relationship, the creation of a dispute would be governed by Australian common law especially if the terms are derogatory to either party. ... e to one session following the assembly, Sam provided his employees with a â€Å"take it or leave it† contract that reduced the flexibility of employees by a significant margin. Being forced into a hard bargain, Jane accepted the contract and began working as usual. Around a month ago, Jane was crushed by a car that rolled over her as she was working on it. The extent of the injuries meant that Jane was effectively unable to work for the next six months and would be unable to continue this career line after recovery. Sensing that Jane was unfit for work anymore, Sam immediately terminated the individual contract. 3. Relevant Common Law Sections The â€Å"take it or leave it† style of agreements between employers and employees came into being following the passage of the WRA (Workplace Relations Act) of 19963. Under this set of laws the employee and the employer could enter into an individual contract that could override state and federal employment laws as long as both parties agreed to it4. Any contracts raised under the AWA only had to meet only the most minimal of all requirements under the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. The agreements drafted in this manner need not include any dispute resolution procedures but were not allowed to include any prohibited content5. Within the current case too, there are no specific dispute resolution procedures outlined. However the AWAs were highly controversial because they severely impinged worker’s rights and the ability to bargain collectively 6 7. Based on this and opposition from various quarters, the Workplace Relations Act of 1996 was curtailed in its influence with the passage of the Fair Work Act of 2009 8. Under this new act any new kinds of AWAs were banned from being put into place. Within the context of

Evidence Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Evidence - Research Paper Example While the $10 note serial number that was used by the undercover police officer had matched the one that the defendant was found possessing in his pocket after the drug was purchased, the discrepancy emanated from the description of the defendant by the â€Å"Eye† officer, who gave details such as the defendant being seen wearing a V-necked T-shirt, with a key on his chain and holding a ginger dale bottle (Weingarten, n.d.). The â€Å"Eye† officer further alleged to have seen the defendant from a distance of 50 to 60 feet, which in reality turned out to be 172 feet distance from the investigations that were later carried out (Weingarten, n.d.). Thus, it is the full disclosure of the evidence from the prosecution side, which allowed the defending side to realize the discrepancy and thus the consequent deceitfulness of the police officer. The purpose of broad disclosure is to help the defense and the prosecution side to prepare well for the case. Especially, broad disclos ure of the evidence held by the prosecution is required, to avoid surprises to the defense, during the trial (Ferdico, 72). Additionally, broad disclosure of evidence is necessary because; it is through the broad disclosure of the evidence, that any disparity and discrepancy can be identified, which then would serve to tell whether either side of the case is being genuine and truthful, or otherwise (Federal Judicial Center, 33). The broad disclosure is also essential, since it allows for the court to have both incriminating and exculpatory information, which then allows it to determine the guilt or otherwise of the defendant. Thus, it is through broad disclosure that a balanced case is enhanced, which then serves to identify the truth, and inform the necessary action by the courts. Various penalties have been set out for failing to give the broad disclosure of evidence, especially the exculpatory evidence, which could help the court determine that the defendant was not guilty, and t hus set him/her free. The first penalty is that; the court may order the party that did not make the necessary disclosure to do it at a specific time, place and manner (Gardner and Terry, 40). The court may also penalize the party that did not make the full disclosure, through allowing the opposing party some more time to go through the newly disclosed evidence, so that the party can prepare well for the trial. Thus, the party that failed to disclose evidence appropriately is punished through having the case being deferred to a later date (Keane and Paul, 63). Finally, the biggest and most punishing penalty that the party that failed to disclose appropriately might get is that, it may be prevented to use the evidence that it did not disclose to the opposing party in the case (Khan, 12). This means that; no matter how useful and convincing the evidence might be, the party will not take the advantage of such information to prove their case. However, there is some evidence that is exem pted from disclosure, which is provided under the exclusionary rule of evidence discovery. Under this rule, it is provided that; the work product of the government shall not be disclosed (Gardner and Terry, 44). This rule provides that any documents that have been made by the government in the course of the investigation or prosecution of the case shall remain confidential, and thus