Resources: Blogs

We’ve hit the jackpot!

Blogs
|

Workplace lotto syndicates and bullying

Recently it was reported that a Sydney factory employee applied to the NSW Supreme Court in an attempt to claim a share of the $40 million jackpot, won by 14 employees of a cable manufacturer in Liverpool.

Recently it was reported that a Sydney factory employee applied to the NSW Supreme Court in an attempt to claim a share of the $40 million jackpot, won by 14 employees of a cable manufacturer in Liverpool.

When the employee realised that the winning numbers had come up, the employee approached the syndicate organiser who advised him that he was not part of the winning syndicate as it was a separate group. The syndicate organiser said he ran a core syndicate as well as other syndicates and it was the “other syndicate” that won the $40 million jackpot.

The employee in question was the only one of the group who was not part of the winning syndicate - apparently he had not paid the extra $50 to be included in that group.

At the hearing it was submitted that the “other syndicate” group had excluded the employee because the syndicate organiser had not been able to speak to him to see if he wanted to take part.

Whilst workplace lotto syndicates may appear to be a bit of fun, it can make employees feel excluded if they were not asked to participate. Employers are reminded that bullying includes “exclusion from work-related events.” If it is seen that an employer is permitting employees to have syndicates and individual employees are excluded, it can be considered as bullying in the workplace. If the Fair Work Commission took a similar view, a stop bullying order could be issued.

It is important that, if syndicates are present in the workplace, the employer makes it clear that these types of activities are not work related events or supported by the employer in any way. These matters should be dealt with outside work hours.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

Employer found liable for workers compensation despite worker’s unreasonable perceptions

Fact or fiction

A recent decision of the New South Wales Personal Injury Commission serves as a reminder of the differing standards of proof when determining liability for claims of bullying and/or harassment under workers compensation laws and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Bullying allegations used as a tactic to direct attention away from an employee’s misconduct

Bullying tactics

It is not uncommon for employees to raise allegations against Employers in order to divert attention away from, or attempt to excuse their own misconduct.

Read more...

FWC warns against employer’s “concerning” performance management in stop-bullying application

Canteen Crasher

The stop-bullying provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provide a mechanism for the Fair Work Commission to impose orders upon employers (as well as individual employees) which are aimed at stopping bullying behaviour in the workplace.

Read more...

Commission finds no objective or rational connection between an employee’s age and his flexible working request to work from home

The age of flexibility

An employee will only be eligible to request a flexible working arrangement if they are able to demonstrate that there is a sufficient nexus between one of the prescribed circumstances under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the request itself.

Read more...

Employer’s “tick and flick” training on workplace policies rendered dismissal unfair

Not just the what, but also the why

When relying on a workplace policy as grounds for dismissal, employers must be able to clearly demonstrate that the employee is aware of the policy and has undergone meaningful training on the policy.

Read more...

Commission finds employer’s unsubstantiated allegations rendered dismissal unfair

Not mushroom for error

Where there is a factual dispute about allegations made against an employee, employers must ensure that the allegations are properly tested before proceeding to a disciplinary process. This will ensure that the employee has been provided with procedural fairness and any reasons relied on by the employer as grounds for dismissal are valid.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.