Workplace Law: Law Case Study

Workplace Law Assignment 1
Workplace Law (Murdoch University)
Your name
Subject and Section
Professor's Name
October 15, 2020
The Legal Issue
The first issue concerns what legal actions are available to Camellia, a perfume company, against Annabel, a chemistry graduate whom they hired. Camellia alleges that Annabel could not fulfill her duties due to her incompetence to assist Camellia's Head Chemist Karl Pierre Laurent with the Middlemist's Red Camellia fragrance, which they are preparing for the company's centenary celebrations.
Furthermore, they allege that Annabel created the fragrance during her employ at Camellia, which she developed for Indigo Cosmetics (Indigo) belongs to Camellia through intellectual property rights. Relatedly, the Head Chemist Dr. Laurent also alleges that Annabel created such perfume from his technologies and techniques, the likes of which Annabel disclosed and gave to Indigo.
The second issue focuses more on the causes of action available to Annabel. Annabel alleges that Camellia's act of removing her from her work was unjustified and without a basis. Furthermore, she argues that she was never given the alleged opportunities promised to her, subsequently depriving her of the chance to develop her fragrance, as was stated during her job interview. She also alleges that she is upset and hurt over Dr. Laurent's comments towards her, calling her an "inexperienced pup" on which a "company such as Camellia would never stake its reputation as a beauty brand on."
The questions may be reduced to the following:
1 What contracted existed between Camellia and Annabel?
2 What were the obligations of Camellia towards Annabel? Likewise, what were the obligations by Annabel towards Camellia?
3 Were Dr. Laurent's acts in assigning Annabel menial tasks and showing no interest towards her capacity as a chemist within his rights? Did these acts prejudice the rights of Annabel?
4 Was the act of Annabel of producing a fragrance for Indigo while under the employ of Camellia a breach of her obligations under the contract that existed between her and Camellia?
5 Was Annabel validly dismissed?
6 Did Indigo validly obtain the product? Is it adequately covered by the Intellectual Property rights law and thus ultimately owned by Camellia?
The relevant law
The law applicable to the given facts is the Fair Work Act of 2009 and related jurisprudence.
The Fair Work Act of 2009 is the primary legislation governing Australia's workplaces, the rights, duties, obligations, and redress of both employer and employee in a contract of employment. The rules and regulations provided therein are known as the national workplace relation system. The purpose of the Fair Work Act of 2009 is to provide a balanced framework for productive workplace relations, which promotes national economic prosperity and social inclusion for all Australians.
Aside from the Fair Work Act of 2009, relevant legal principles and jurisprudence related to workplace law will also be applied to answer the questions posed.
Application of the law to the facts
In applying legal principles to the facts, the questions enumerated earlier shall be addressed in turn.
What contract existed between Camellia and Annabel?
The contract between Camellia and Annabel was a contract of employment, governed by the provisions of the Fair Work Act of 2009. The elements of the employment contract as defined under the law mainly are (1) consideration; (2) object or offer; and (3) consent. Other elements intend to create legal relations, certainty and completeness, legality, and absence of vitiating factors.
A consideration is a value sufficient to support a contract. It is the value that is paid in exchange for the prestation or object. An object is the benefit, privilege, right, or property received in the contract. Consent is affirmative acceptance by both parties. It must not be attended by circumstances which would vitiate consent, such as bad faith, mistake, or fraud.
The intention to create legal relations is also essential. The absence of intention to bind oneself may amount to a vitiation of consent by way of mistake. The offer must also be specific and complete, the determination of which cannot be left to either party's sole discretion. All elements of the contract must be legal; otherwise, it would not exist in the eyes of the law.
What were the obligations of Camellia towards Annabel?
As an employer, Camellia has a two-tiered duty: a duty to pay for work and care for its employees.
Under the Fair Work Act of 2009, the employer has the obligation and responsibility to pay for the services validly rendered by its employees. If the employees are ready, able, and willing to work, there is a duty to pay on the employer's part.
Furthermore, and under the same law, Camellia has the personal duty to reasonably provide for the care and ensure its employees' safety. Such duty is non-delegable and must be complied with by none other than the employer himself; otherwise, its employees' safety would be a mere secondary concern to the employer.[Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English, [1938] AC 57] [Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672]
Closely related to this duty to provide care for its employees is the employer's responsibility to prevent bullying or harassment in the workplace. In line with this, it was stated in Nationwide News v. Naidu that "an employer is...