English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

[ On 9 March 2005, the High Court of Australia handed down two deci- sions of considerable importance for employers. The first decision, Minis- ter for Employment and Workplace Relations v Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 9 concerned the circumstances in which a "succession of business" or a part of a business will occur for the purposes of section 149(1)(d) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 . The second decision, Am- cor Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Minister for Employment [2005] HCA 10, pertained to whether, upon the facts pre- sented to the Court, a group of employees had been rendered redundant with a consequent (and cumulatively significant) entitlement to severance pay. Interestingly, the High Court adopted a 'textual' approach to statutory construction in Gribbles but a 'contextual' approach to the legal interpre- tation of the relevant clause in the agreement in question in Amcor . Not- withstanding these differing approaches, the result in each case is arguably favourable to employers. ]

POST AMCOR AND GRIBBLES: A NEW ERA FOR SUCCESSION OF BUSINESS AND REDUNDANCY LAW?