Walsh V Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust

Q1) Adverse Action
The facts of Mary’s case share great similarities with that of the case Walsh v Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (No. 2) [2014]. Indeed, Mary’s case seems particularly strong as the defendant’s under performance has been documented frequently. However, the pivot on which this case rests is that of a workplace right enabling the employee to “make a compliant or injury… in relation to their employment. In advising Mary counsel finds that whilst the issue may seem straightforward, it is highly likely that the court will find that in lieu of the evidence provided which establishes Simon’s under performance and unruly behaviour that adverse action was taken on the premises of his underperformance. Counsel, will also argue

Prima facie, on balance evidence proves that his dismissal was in light of his underperformance. As such the Mary has proven that ‘simon’s rude, confrontational and cooperative behaviour has lead to the occurrence of his dismissal. Moreover, the dismissal was also legitimate as Simon was under performing. The court in this instance will most likely find that even though Mary said that one of the reasons she dismissed him was because of the complaint he made in regards to Jack, hwoever, obviously that was not the ‘sole or dominant reason.’ This statement by Mary does not on balance have the strength to prove that adverse action in fact

Also, the scenario has indicated that the Bank complied with the provision set forth under 181 regarding application process, so the nature and circumstance in which the ballot was put to the members is not questionable.
Was Michelle’s act of act of sending the revised offer directly to the employees homes and putting it to a ballot a breach of the good faith bargaining requirements?
Counsel for Michelle insists that in this instance in accordance with the judgement in Tahmoor’s case that in fact there was no breach as in that case “we are satisfied that in arranging to put its proposed agreement to the employees in a ballot, Tahmoor was not acting capriciously or unfairly in the circumstances prevailing at the time". Thus in applying this judgement evidently, my client did not act deceptively as in the facts it has been disclosed that “all of the employees, including those who has participated in negotiations on behalf of the Union” that the Bank would be “increasing its offer” and it also informed everyone that the offer will be sent to the employees homes.” In light of this it is highly unlikely that the argument that the bank acted unfairly or capriciously will suffice as the union was well-informed of the Bank’s actions. Thus the requirement that “disclosing relevant information… in a timely manner has been adhered