Browsing: WHS decisions (National) | Page 7

• Recklessness fine followed by site-preservation conviction; and
  
• Refugee advocates concerned by developments in WHS cases.

A worker who claims she was bullied through her managers withholding resources like work cars from her, and excluding her from social events, has been denied stop-bullying orders.

A business owner could be jailed for up to five years, after he was charged with reckless conduct relating to a similar incident to one that recently attracted a record WHS penalty. Meanwhile, a train driver who was accused of recklessly using his mobile phone has been sentenced.

A worker's "cruel and menacing" comments about a co-worker, in a private Teams chat with a third colleague, posed a "serious and imminent risk to the safety of the co-worker", a commission has ruled.

• High Court's urination ruling provides "comfort" to multiple sectors; and
  
• Executives reminded of harassment-reporting duties with new projects.

A worker who attempted to return to work after suffering a non-work-related injury has been awarded $44,000 in damages, after a court found his employer discriminated against him by ignoring medical advice and refusing to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his return.

The High Court has quashed a ruling that a company is vicariously liable for the injury-causing act of an intoxicated employee urinating on a sleeping colleague in an accomodation facility.

A worker who was treated poorly after he asked his boss not to call him a "c-nt" has been awarded at least $93,500, with a court highlighting the worker's rights under health and safety laws and finding his employer's decision to dismiss him was influenced by his complaint.

A commission has called out a major employer's "troubling" reliance on its customer violence de-escalation policies in dismissing a worker drawn into a scuffle with a member of the public, finding the strategy's core aspects "simply did not apply" to the incident that unfolded.

An employer is being forced to re-defend its training and safety systems, and to prove it was entitled to rely on a worker to identify safety hazards that required him to seek help, under a retrial ordered in relation to an unrestrained load falling out of a trailer.