Fried Chicken, Unfair Dismissal and Job Creation: One of These Things is Not Like the Other.

By Craig Dowling and John Howe.

The government's ongoing crusade on unfair dismissal laws is supposedly based on job creation and aiding small business

The Hamzy decision in 2001 by the federal Court showed that the government has not made a good case on the connection between the dismissal laws and job creation.

Mark Wooden gave evidence in the case that the application of unfair dismissal laws to these types of casual employees would make it difficult for vulnerable classes of employees to find work. The court found that Wooden's opinion was "an entirely theoretical construct." He did not have any direct evidence in support of his view and admitted that there had not been any research on the effect of applying unfair dismissal laws.

Following the case the government made changes to regulations to exclude certain classes of employees from the law.

An area that was not defined by the regulation was "short period" other than it being a period of less than 12 months. The Court did not determine the meaning of short period and further challenge to the regulations when it comes to a period close to but not a full twelve months is possible soon.

Again we find the government concerned with a change to labour law that they claim will boost employment, a claim not backed by any evidence. There is no effort by the government to promote job creation directly via labour law, unlike in the EC where governments are directly addressing the issue through changes to laws and directives.

(Australian Journal of Labour Law; vol. 15, no. 2, September 2002)