- Employees may claim compensation if the termination of service is unfair and a notice of termination must be served one month prior to the dismissal. If the employee has started working as an employee after 6 April 2012, he must have worked for at least 2 years before claiming unfair dismissal. As per the facts of the case, Max is not entitled to take any action for unfair dismissal against Greek on the Go as the employers have terminated him within his completion of 1 year of his employment.
- If Max had not shared the recipes with Yobs Café without the permission of the employers of the Greek on the Go, his dismissal would have been unlawful. However, he may claim that he did not intend to cause harm to the business interest by sharing the recipes, hence, his dismissal was unfair. Since, employers may dismiss employees without providing any notice of termination if they are of the opinion that th employees have been engaged in misconduct. While the employee dismissed is due to misconduct that is prescribed by law, there is less likelihood of Max in succeeding in an unfair dismissal action against the employers of the Greek on the Go.
- According to Grade 1 Kitchen Attendant under the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010, the weekly pay rate that Max shall be entitled to is $714.90 and the hourly pay rate is $18.81. In addition, Max shall be entitled to $2.13 per hour or part of an hour per day.
- The employers shall be held liable for underpaying the employees and shall be entitled to pay compensation to the employees. Under Fair Work Ombudsman,the employers, Yasmin and Sam may be subjected to prosecution to recover the underpaid amounts and penalties shall be imposed upon them for underpaying Max. The employees are entitled to be paid at least their minimum pay rates and entitlements.
- Max should initially, contact the human resource area for obtaining assistance regarding the fact whether is former employers have maintained any superannuation funds. Max may also inquire about his funds from the Australian Taxation office, which provides an overview of the superannuation system of Australia.
- As per the process for dealing with discriminatory complaints arising within employment in South Australia, the Equality Opportunity Commissionstates that a complaint may be made to lodge a complaint against such discrimination under the South Australian Equal opportunity Act. After compliant is made, the written complaint is assessed to determine if law covers such complaint. If the law does not cover it, the complaint shall not be accepted. On acceptance of such complaint, conciliation officer shall be appointed to hear the complaint from the complainant. The Equal Opportunity Commission shall ensure fair treatment and that right of every person is respected.
- While creating a job description, one must ensure that specific requirements of the job are considered enabling potential applicants to comprehend the required duties and skills. The job description must use language that is easy to understand and differentiates between the desirable and the essential criteria for the job. The job description must include statements that encourage people from diverse cultural background, the aboriginals to apply as well. The advertisement in this case, does discriminate against Anna and other potential participants who do not have high level of English language skills. This is because the advertisement is meant for cleaning staffs, hence, cleaning skills is important and Anna has cleaning skills. Hence, the language requirement is discriminating for her as well as for other potential applicants having cleaning skills.
- In case employers fail to ensure that job related advertisements are discriminatory in nature, the employer shall be held liable for committing breach of Equality Opportunity Act and shall also be liable to pay compensation for the same.
- Businesses are prohibited from making incorrect statements or are prohibited from creating false impression under the Australian Consumer Law. This is a common rule applicable to advertising, any information that is provided by the staffs of the businesses online or in the media such as websites. For instance, business are prohibited from making false claims about history, quality or style of any product or services.
The intention of the business is immaterial if the overall impression of the business advertisement, promotion, statement or quotation is misleading, such conduct amounts to violation of law. Sam and Yasmin may bring an action against the proprietors of Greek on the Go under section 18 of the ACL for being engaged in misleading conduct.
- In Taco Company of Australia Inc. v Taco Bell Pty Ltd ,the court developed a four-step test to determine whether a conduct is deceptive or misleading. Firstly, the targeted audience of the public should be determined to whom such conduct has been directed. Secondly, the conduct must be considered to be referring to all the persons that fall within the targeted audience, including the educated persons, young, elderly, etc. Thirdly, a person provides evidence about the fact that they have formed an erroneous conclusion shall be used as evidence in court but is not sufficient to establish a breach of section 52 of the ACL. The court must determine whether the conduct complained of is deceptive or misleading.
Fourthly, there must be a connection between the conduct of the defendant and the misconception. As per the facts of the case, the use of the term ‘Chef’s Own Recipes’ forms an erroneous conclusion amongst the targeted audience who might believe that the recipe belonged to Yobe’s Café. There is a connection between the conduct and the misconduct as the owner of the café intentionally made false and misleading statements about the recipe to deceive the targeted audience to believe the same.
The Greek on the go are entitled to claim damages under section 236 of the ACL. They may obtain an injunction order from the court against the Yobe’s cafe or obtain compensatory order under section 237 of the ACL, becoming entitled to compensation from the owners of the Yobe’s café.
Charlesworth, Sara, and Fiona Macdonald. "Women, work and industrial relations in Australia in 2014." Journal of Industrial Relations 57.3 (2015): 366-382.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (cth)
Corones, Stephen G. Competition law in Australia. Thomson Reuters Australia, Limited, 2014.
Equal Opportunity Act 2010
Howells, Geraint, and Stephen Weatherill. Consumer protection law. Routledge, 2017.
Kariyawasam, Kanchana, and Shaun Wigley. "Online shopping, misleading advertising and consumer protection." Information & Communications Technology Law 26.2 (2017): 73-89.
Slot, Piet Jan, and Matin Farley. An Introduction to Competition Law. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.
Stewart, Andrew. Stewart's guide to employment law. Vol. 3. Sydney: Federation Press, 2013.
Taco Company of Australia Inc. v Taco Bell Pty Ltd  FCA 136; (1982) 42 ALR 177
Thampapillai, Dilan, et al. Australian Commercial Law. Cambridge University Press, 2015.