The rights of a person can be defined as legal or moral entitlements or permissions, and their responsibilities can be defined as legal or moral obligations that you have for other people. When a person does not meet the expectations of their responsibilities and as a result, infringes upon the rights of another person, this often results in a dispute between individuals. There are various legal measures available to assist in resolving disputes, including the Fair Work Ombudsman and The Royal Commission, their effectiveness will be outlined and evaluated through this essay. The case used to display the process that the Fair Work Ombudsman take is Foodora PTY LTD vs Fair Work Ombudsman. The case used to outline the process taken by the Royal Commission is the Royal commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
A legal method often used to resolve disputes is the Fair Work Ombudsman. Their role is to promote harmonious, productive and cooperative workplace relations. They work to resolve disputes caused by the infringement of rights made in the workplace. The jurisdiction of the Fair Work Ombudsman is set under the Fair Work Act 2009, The Fair Work Ombudsman have proven to be an effective legal method used to resolve disputes as it is accessible for everyone across Australia equally by offering their services with no cost. The Fair Work Ombudsman use a specific process to solve disputes including; Giving notice of their investigation, gathering all necessary evidence, analysing their evidence and reporting their findings, and then monitoring the compliance of the business. The duration of these investigations varies depending on the severity of the complaint, however all progress is communicated to the business and people involved. Within the case of Foodora PTY LTD vs Fair Work Ombudsman the online food chain company Foodora is facing allegations of underpaying their employees in a case of sham contracting which is in direct violation of the Fair Work Act 2009 which states “it is unlawful to pretend that a worker is an independent contractor when the worker is really an employee.” The company previously labeled their employees as independent contractors, rather than employees. It is clear that the rights of the workers of Foodora are in fact being infringed upon, and that Foodora is in clear violation of the Fair Work Act 2009, which means they are not fulfilling their responsibilities as a business and has in fact caused the dispute between these individuals.
The process taken by the Fair Work Ombudsman was successful in achieving part of the required justice for the 3 workers; as a result it was found by an investigation conducted by the Fair Work Ombudsman, that Foodora was underpaying their three workers $1620.74 over a 4 week period, during 2015-16. It is also alleged that Foodora has failed to make any payments to the superannuations on behalf of the three workers, which is in direct violation of the Fair Work Act 2009. By collecting the relevant information The Fair Work Ombudsman were able to make recommendation that applied to the needs of society, in particular the three workers involved. During the investigation conducted by the Fair Work Ombudsman, it was found that when Foodora employed the three workers in 2015, and for parts of 2016, Foodora had breached sham contracting laws by misrepresenting the three employees as independent contractors when they were in fact employees of Foodora. After notifying Foodora about their investigation, they started to compile evidence by examining the nature of the relationship between Foodora and the 3 employees involved, this was conducted through a multifactor test. After applying the tests, the Fair Work Ombudsman alleges the three workers were in fact employees of Foodora during the relevant period, and found relevant evidence to support these claims. Once this evidence was compiled, the Fair Work Ombudsman found that Foodora committed several breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009. Within the case presented, The Fair Work Ombudsman can be found to be an effective legal measure as the company was charged $54,000 per contravention for committing several breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009. This is an important outcome of this investigation as in an effective legal system, legal measures used to resolve disputes should be successful in finding justice for the parties who have had their rights infringed upon. In this case the company was in fact brought to justice for the infringement of the rights of the workers. However, another important factor in an effective legal system, is the ability to achieve justice on one's own; in this case the issue is yet to come to a final conclusion, however is set to appear before the federal court on July 10 2018, and therefore means that the Fair Work Ombudsman were unable to achieve justice on their own. Another issue with the process of the Fair Work Ombudsman that can be seen as ineffective is the time needed to complete the investigation. When effectively resolving a dispute between individuals, any legal measure used must be able to efficiently reach a conclusion; in this case however the Fair Work Ombudsman were unable to do so. The Fair Work Ombudsman in addition have no formal power in terms of legally binding rules, which as a result makes any recommendations they give to businesses, simply advice that may or may not be followed. For a legal method to be considered effective when resolving disputes, the organisation must be able to enforce any relevant rules or recommendations; which the Fair Work Ombudsman cannot, in turn making them ineffective when trying to achieve justice for these victims. Overall the effectiveness of the Fair Work Ombudsman cannot be judged in general terms, but rather on individual occasions and circumstances.
A legal method often used to resolve disputes between individuals is the Royal commission. The Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into institutional responses to child sexual abuse in November 2012 and their jurisdiction is set under the Royal Commission Act 1902. They were appointed to this case as the rights of thousands of children were being infringed upon by many religious officials, which put the mental and physical safety of these children at risk. The Royal Commission was the legal method used to resolve disputes between individuals in the case Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.Once the Royal Commission was appointed, in 2013 the Royal commissions Act 1902 (cth) was amended, to create a process called ‘private session’, which, helps collect the stories of victims in a comfortable and safe environment. This change in legislation enhanced the safety of victims, to keep up with the needs of society, in particular the victims that were affected by institutional sexual assault. The first public hearing made by the Royal Commission in reference to this case was in April 2013. In total 57 formal public hearings have been held, during which it heard evidence of child sexual abuse within many institutions, through 1,200 witnesses, over 400 days. In April 2014 the first roundtable was held, which enabled representatives policy experts, survivors and academics to discuss the key policy issues. To successfully achieve justice when resolving disputes between individuals, legal measures used must be able to respond and communicate in an effective way, which in this case the Royal Commission was able to do within the roundtables that were held.
By September that year the Australian government made the decision to extend the timeline of the Royal commission until December 15 2017. The Royal Commission released the Criminal Justice Report in August 2017 which includes the final recommendations on the response of the criminal justice system to victims of child sexual assault. To conclude, in December 2017 the final report was presented to the Governor General, which detailed the culmination of the five year inquiry. By making relevant recommendations, responding to the issue and having the power to enforce their recommendations, the Royal Commission can be seen as an effective legal measure used to resolve disputes between individuals.Over their 5 year investigation the Royal Commission put forward 400 recommendations which are in the process of being implemented. These recommendations were written for religious institutions, Federal government and State government. Within an effective legal system, all current laws and legislation must be reformed and new laws and legislation must be made to keep up with society's needs and to ensure that justice is being achieved. However, the 5 year time period it took the Royal Commission to conduct their investigation and make relevant recommendations/ law reforms is seen as quite ineffective. Resource efficiency is quite important for an effective legal measure to function at its best, however in this case, the Royal Commission was unable to work in a sorter time period, and needed to extend their investigation many times.
To conclude, the infringement of rights causes disputes between individuals that must be resolved by alternative dispute resolution methods. The Fair Work Ombudsman has their jurisdiction set under the Fair Work Act 2009, and have a very tight process that they have to follow to achieve justice for the individuals involved. The Fair Work Ombudsman can be an effective legal measure used to resolve disputes, however the time their process takes and their inability to legally enforce their recommendations, makes their effectiveness questionable in certain circumstances. The Royal Commission has their jurisdiction set under Royal Commission Act 1902, and was appointed to inquire into institutional responses to child sexual abuse in November 2012. The time taken for the Royal commission to complete an investigation can be proven to be ineffective, however their thorough process and ability to keep up with society's needs makes them an effective legal method used to resolve disputes.