Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 JANUARY 2015

Workplace policies: Aspiration or Obligation?

Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Contributor
Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth is Australia’s leading independent law firm. We provide exceptional legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Those involved in drafting workplace policies should avoid language which unintentionally imposes employer obligations.

AustraliaEmployment and HR

Whether a workplace policy is simply 'aspirational' or 'contractual' in nature can be problematic. Much will depend on the language in question.

In Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 177 (22 December 2014), the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Allsop CJ, Rares and McKerracher JJ) allowed an employee's appeal, holding that the policy under consideration was not merely 'aspirational' but rather contained mutual obligations that were capable of precise identification.

Romero highlights the need for those who write policies to carefully consider the language that they use, and the ramifications of employers not complying with the terms of their policies.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from