ACBoard & Tassie Libs: how low can you go?

[stui magpie]

^ Are they particularly noteworthy. I'm sort of looking for such services.

They extract cash while using minimum effort thus maximising profit for themselves. The maximum amount payable in compensation under a Fair Work arbitration is 6 months pay, and that's far from the norm. They settle quick to get their cut and use mainly clerks and juniors to do all the pre work, you only see an actual lawyer if you go to arbitration. They're bottom feeding ambulance chasers, with Slater and Gordon only slightly better.

[K]

Good to know. I guess that's a general statement applicable to all areas of litigation (not just work/unfair dismissal), so it's MB<SG<?<??

The problem is it seems this probably correlates precisely with firms offering no-win no-fee, right? So someone not wanting to be lumped with legal costs on top of everything else...

[stui magpie]

^

It completely depends on the circumstances of your situation and what restitution you're seeking.

Depending on the circs you potentially have access to:

Unfair dismissal via Fair Work
Unlawful dismissal via federal court
Adverse action proceedings via federal court.

Those 3 options would be in order of both expense in running the action and potential reward if successful.

[K]

Interview on The Project:

https://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the- ... g-her-mind

[K]

Did I hear right? Someone working in gov. set up a fake account to attack or report her, she reported that to the gov. & the gov. sacked the person (all this long before she got sacked by CA)? (How did they know who?) Would not that person also be able to make an unfair dismissal claim, against the gov.?

[stui magpie]

Unless you read or heard different to me, a liberal staffer allegedly was using a social media account under a pseudonym to throw rocks at anyone who disagreed with gov policy. She was just one he had a go at, he was caught out and resigned.

Depending how the resignation happened, he could go unfair dismissal for what's termed a "constructive dismissal", aka being forced to resign. I'd suggest it's unlikely though.

[K]

Yes, that sounds right. (I'm sure I heard less than you --- just fragments.) I wonder how they tracked the staffer down.

There are also media rumblings about the possibility of the CA sacking being added to their review.

Cricket's players association has called for the contentious sacking of a Cricket Australia staff member over a series of tweets to be included in a wide-ranging cultural review of the sport's governing body.

The Australian Cricketers Association has made the recommendation, after Tasmanian-based government relations manager Angela Williamson was sacked in June for her social media criticism of her state's abortion and environmental policies.
...

In its letter to Williamson, CA said it "has no issue with you expressing your political beliefs" but took aim at the "disparaging tone" of her "inappropriate" tweets, this making her position "untenable".
...

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/ca ... 4zvme.html

[K]

Sacked CA staffer Angela Williamson to head to Federal Court

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket ... 4zy0g.html

"The woman sacked by Cricket Australia over controversial tweets rejected an offer this week to return to the organisation and will seek to fight her case before the Federal Court.

Fairfax Media can reveal CA chief executive James Sutherland intervened in the case in a bid to broker peace with Angela Williamson...
...

The scandal had even prompted calls for Tasmania Police to investigate local health minister Michael Ferguson over allegations he had revealed Williamson's medical information to CA before she was sacked.
...

Does anyone know what the penalty is for disclosing other people's medical information without consent??

[watt price tully]

Sacked CA staffer Angela Williamson to head to Federal Court

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket ... 4zy0g.html

"The woman sacked by Cricket Australia over controversial tweets rejected an offer this week to return to the organisation and will seek to fight her case before the Federal Court.

Fairfax Media can reveal CA chief executive James Sutherland intervened in the case in a bid to broker peace with Angela Williamson...
...

The scandal had even prompted calls for Tasmania Police to investigate local health minister Michael Ferguson over allegations he had revealed Williamson's medical information to CA before she was sacked.
...

Does anyone know what the penalty is for disclosing other people's medical information without consent??

This is a rancid goverment well before this action. Hodgman Junior makes Leyonhjelm, Latham and Pauline Hanson look sane & as we all know that takes some doing.

So Sutherland has tried to intervene. Mr Lickspittle subservience eh? I think we should get Andrew Symonds' opinion on just how good Sutherland is? Utter scumbag.

Later I'll tell ewes what I really think

[K]

...
Does anyone know what the penalty is for disclosing other people's medical information without consent??

ABC reported that

"When referring the complaint to police last week, [Shadow Attorney-General] Ms Haddad said Mr Ferguson may have breached the Personal Information Protection Act.

The State Government has consistently denied any wrongdoing, and said Mr Ferguson had not disclosed any information that was not already on the public record.

A police spokeswoman said no investigation into Ms Haddad's complaint was warranted because the substance of the complaint did not constitute a criminal offence."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-16/p ... n/10128054

Is anyone familiar with the Personal Information Protection Act? (Is this a general act covering everyone? I guess it's a state act, so it will vary state by state. Aren't there confidentiality rules governing parliamentarians?)

[stui magpie]

So if she's taking it to the federal court, she's not going unfair dismissal, she's either going unlawful dismissal or adverse action. She's after a tattslotto win.

[K]

^ But on the negative side, she now has to figure in "disbursements"... How much are they likely to be?

Re. previous comment, I see the Vic. version is called the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014.

[stui magpie]

What do you mean by disbursements?

[K]

Apparently (i.e. according to the articles in which it appeared), "disbursements" refers to court costs other than the lawyers' fees. Presumably, one wouldn't have those if one's lawyers negotiate a settlement...

[K]

...
Does anyone know what the penalty is for disclosing other people's medical information without consent??

ABC reported that
"When referring the complaint to police last week, [Shadow Attorney-General] Ms Haddad said Mr Ferguson may have breached the Personal Information Protection Act.
...
A police spokeswoman said no investigation into Ms Haddad's complaint was warranted because the substance of the complaint did not constitute a criminal offence."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-16/p ... n/10128054

Is anyone familiar with the Personal Information Protection Act? (Is this a general act covering everyone? I guess it's a state act...)

The Victorian equivalent is presumably the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014. [I'll assume for the moment that they are very similar.]

A definition therein:
"personal information means information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database), that is recorded in any form and whether true or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from the information or opinion, but does not include information of a kind to which the Health Records Act 2001 applies..."
[Okay, perhaps the Health Records Act needs looking at too...]

A little later:
"A contravention of this Act does not create any criminal liability except to the extent expressly provided by this Act."
[It made me curious when the spokeswoman was quoted as saying "the substance of the complaint did not constitute a criminal offence". What does a contravention of an act constitute? Is this just a matter of categorization, as in "misdemeanor" vs. "felony", etc.?]