Our Blog
Onemini is modern and clean template for agency.
Vaccinating your child against COVID-19 – separated families
Vaccinating your child, or not, is a decision which becomes even more complex where separated parents hold differing views.
PLEASE NOTE THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE IS DESIGNED TO ASSIST IN SHOWING THE ATTITUDE OF THE COURTS IN THIS SITUATION ONLY.
When parents can’t agree about vaccinating their child/ren the matter can come before The Family Courts.
Since the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination and its subsequent availability to children aged 5 to 11, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia’s (“the Court”) COVID-19 list has seen an increase in parenting disputes regarding whether their child ought to be vaccinated.
Parenting disputes about whether a child ought to be vaccinated long predate the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court has been making decisions on traditional vaccines and whether a child should be vaccinated for many years.[1]
[1] See for example Makinen & Taube [2021] FCCA 1878; Covington & Covington [2021] FamCAFC 52; Kingsford & Kingsford [2012] FamCA 889.
Vaccinating your child – Parental Responsibility
A parent has ‘parental responsibility’ for a child. Parental responsibility is defined within the Family Law Act 1975 to mean all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children.[1] Simply put, parental responsibility covers the day-to-day decision making in relation to the child, as well as major long-term issues, including decisions relating to the health of the child.
Therefore, a decision to, or not to, vaccinate a child falls within the realm of parental responsibility.
It is a presumption applied by the Court that parents share equal shared parental responsibility for the child. This means that both parents must make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision on any major long-term issues.
If an agreement cannot be reached between the parents regarding whether a child should be vaccinated, the Court may be required to decide on the issue.
[1] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 61B.
Can the Court order a child to be vaccinated?
It has been long accepted in case law that the provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 afford the Court a discretionary power to make orders regarding the medical treatment of a child.[1]
The Court has no fixed position on whether a child ought to or ought not to be vaccinated. The starting point in any parenting dispute is that the Court’s paramount consideration is in the best interests of the child.
[1] Secretary, Dept of Health & Community Services v JMB & SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218; Dacombe & Paddison [2021] FedCFamC1A 103.
Vaccinating your child – What does the case law say?
Case law tends to show that most parenting disputes regarding vaccination result in the Court finding that it is in the best interests of the child to be vaccinated. The most common approach taken by the Court is to allocate sole parental responsibility regarding the child’s health to the parent in favour of vaccinating the child.
Below is a discussion of a recent decision of the Court:
Cranston & Perrson (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 187
Cranston & Persson (No 2)[1] is a recent decision heard by Deputy Chief Justice McClelland at first instance in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia’s division 1.
This decision concerned the discrete issue as to whether the mother should be given sole parental responsibility in respect to determining whether the parties’ children should be vaccinated against COVID-19. The father opposed the children being vaccinated.
On 21 January 2022, the mother attended upon the children’s general practitioner (“GP”) to receive advice about whether the children should receive the COVID-19 vaccination. The GP recommended that the children should be vaccinated, and the children received their first vaccination on the same day.
The father then filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. He sought an order that the mother be prohibited from arranging for the children to receive their second dose.
The father filed a single affidavit, and the mother filed three affidavits that attached the medical certificates of the children’s GP, as well as documents and webpages downloaded from the relevant government websites regarding the COVID-19 vaccine.
During the proceedings, the father indicated an unwillingness to accept the substance of the advice provided by government health authorities and showed scepticism towards the authenticity of the relevant government agencies. In his oral submissions, the father contended that the Queensland and Commonwealth governments “lie to people”.[2]
McClelland DCJ stated he was not satisfied that the father would have regard to the health advice provided by both the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments with an “open and objective mind,” which McClelland DCJ considered to be “a necessary precondition to a decision being made that is in the best interests of the children.”[3]
McClelland DCJ concluded that unless satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk to the children, he will make an order giving the mother sole parental responsibility regarding the specific issue of vaccination of the children in respect to the COVID-19 virus, where vaccination is in accordance with the national immunisation program or as recommended by the children’s general practitioner.[4]
McClelland DCJ further concluded that is in the children’s interests for them to be vaccinated, both from the perspectives of the health of each child and also their day-to-day life as active members of society, including attending school and their ability to participate in extra-curricular and sporting activities.[5]
[1] [2022] FedCFamC1F 187.
[2] Cranston & Persson (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 187 at [46].
[3] Cranston & Persson (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 187 at [47].
[4] Cranston & Persson (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 187 at [48].
[5] Cranston & Persson (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 187 at [50].
What can we take away from this?
A decision made by the Court are always made with the best interests of the child in mind.
It is best that the Court be aided by expert evidence relating to the child in question, not just general information on the vaccine or its potential side effects. Such evidence may be obtained from the child’s paediatrician or general practitioner who are familiar with the child’s medical history.
If you require assistance in a family law matter, please contact the Purcell Taylor Lawyers office on (07) 4758 5858.
This post contains general advice. Each circumstance will vary and must be considered based on its individual facts. Please obtain legal advice as necessary.
MADISON PRESTON | Family Lawyer
Ph: (07) 4758 5858
E: madison.preston@purcelltaylor.com.au
LinkedIn: Madison Preston
Help us save The Children’s Sanctuary
Not so far away from Townsville, there are children living in extreme poverty.
These Cambodian children have no safe place to sleep, barely any clothes, food or clean water and no access to healthcare or education.
They live in the darkest and most dangerous of environments imaginable for children and face horrors no child should ever have to endure.
Yet, a small Australian charity known as The Children’s Sanctuary has been quietly helping to change the course of many children’s lives for over 15 years.
But now they need our help.
About The Children’s Sanctuary
Established by Australian couple, Andrew Clift and Dawn Cornish in 2006 after they honeymooned in Cambodia and were shocked by the extreme level of poverty suffered in the community, the charity provides young people with educational opportunities and the ability to grow in peace and safety.
More than changing these children’s lives individually, the charity hopes the young people it helps will grow into community leaders and go on to inspire long term change for future generations in their country.
Along with medical, educational, entrepreneurial and other community-based initiatives the Children’s Sanctuary’s primary program is its Orphanage in Siem Reap province, Cambodia.
Where children are rescued from the most dire of circumstances and able to live in a supportive, safe and healthy environment with access to education and healthcare while still maintaining their family connections.
The children
Each child at the Sanctuary has a story, the beginnings of most so traumatic it’s hard for us to imagine.
But with the help of The Children’s Sanctuary team their lives are being transformed.
One such story is that of Makara, who was just three years old when she and her three siblings were welcomed into the Children’s Sanctuary. They were living with their mother who was struggling to provide food, shelter and clothes for her children. Because Makara’s mother was not eating or drinking enough she was unable to produce breast milk to feed Makara’s youngest sibling.
“These children have been with us for many years, the oldest, Makara is now 16,” Co-Founder Dawn said.
“It’s wonderful to see how she came from just about the worst situation you could imagine for a child and now she has grown into a gently spoken young woman who achieves top grades. She’s sensitive, caring and she’s healthy. It’s just absolutely glorious to see.”
A desperate situation
Now the saviours are the ones who desperately need help.
The Children’s Sanctuary is reliant upon sponsorship, individual and corporate, to keep its programs running.
COVID has had a devastating impact, not only forcing it to put a number of initiatives on hold, but also prompting many loyal supporters to withdraw as sponsors due to impacts of the pandemic.
It means the Sanctuary is at a real risk of closure and the children who live there are in danger of being forced back into unsafe and frightening situations and unimaginable poverty.
Why help?
“We don’t have to let our borders dictate to us where we can assist another human being.”
Dawn Cornish – Co-founder
We all go through daily struggles including financial, family and health concerns but with that daily grind it can be sometimes easy or convenient to turn a blind eye to what others in this world may be enduring.
When Dawn and Andrew visited Cambodia the unbelievable poverty struck them to the core.
“We couldn’t believe that this was happening so close to Australia, and we didn’t even know about it,” Dawn said.
“The children were suffering, just like you would see on those World Vision ads years back, this is happening now in Cambodia.
“There is no way for them to get to a hospital, there is often no way for mothers to adequately care for their children. For food, they will eat anything they can find including bugs or snakes. They live under the most basic of shelters without protection from the environment or other dangers.
“We committed ourselves to these children and we are looking for others who may join with us in this venture and know that what they are giving is going directly to the children.
“We really emphasise good education because we want to end the cycle of poverty, we provide the children supplementary classes and we have tutors in the UK and Australia who do skype lessons because education is the key to ending that cycle.”
“I feel humbled that people have believed in this cause and have joined with us over so many years and proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish together. But now we need help to keep it going.”
Dawn Cornish – Co-founder
“For a relatively small amount we can change these children’s lives and hopefully make a difference to their children and their children’s children.”
How can you help?
Every cent goes directly to helping the children and all donations are tax deductable in Australia.
Individuals – If you are in a position to make a one-off donation or provide ongoing support please get in touch with the Sanctuary.
The charity has set up a Go Fund Me page aiming to raise $30,000 to keep the orphanage open throughout 2022.
Businesses can support The Children’s Charity through one-off donations or ongoing corporate sponsorship.
Purcell Taylor Lawyers has close links with The Children’s Sanctuary. Our Director Melody is a Board Member and Secretary as well as being the sister of co-founder Dawn.
Purcell Taylor Lawyers is a corporate sponsor of The Children’s Sanctuary.
Read More →
Love leads to conveyancing legend
He’s a stalwart of the industry but Mark Spiegelhauer’s career, that’s now etched into Townsville conveyancing legend, might not ever have happened if not for falling in love.
Conveyancing in Townsville will never quite be the same again after the retirement of industry stalwart, and all-round good guy, Mark Spiegelhauer this month.
After 44 years and around 30,000 conveyances Mark is believed to be the longest serving conveyancer in Queensland,
Despite doing the job for almost half a century he says he still loves it and is proud of the legacy he is leaving behind.
Q&A
How does it feel to be retired after almost half a century with conveyancing legend status?
It’s quite interesting because, I’ve still lgot my first ever pay slip somewhere and I think I started on about the 7th or 8th of September, so it’s almost 44 years to the day since I started out.
It was a bit scary walking in on the last Monday of my working life, I’ve never been unemployed a day in my life that I didn’t want to be.
I’m grateful to the team at Purcell Taylor. They’ve looked after me, I’ve looked after them. It’s been two-way street and I’ve loved working here and it is going to hurt to leave.
“I’m now acting for grand children of my clients from 30 years ago”
What are you most proud of about your career?
I’m most proud of the mateship, the friendships and the respect I’ve achieved over the years with all sorts of people; my peers, my clients and financiers – they respect my advice and I’m proud to say I don’t think I’ve ever let them down.
I have some clients who have stuck with me from the start and I’m now acting for grand children of clients from 30 years ago.
It makes you proud to have made an impression on somebody so many years ago and they remember it, so it must have been a good experience.
Everybody is amazed that I stuck it out for so long because many people who’ve done the job, never want to do it again. The pressure is high, the turnarounds are fast and often the hours are long.
I’m on call 24/7. It’s not uncommon to get a phone call at night or on weekends from agents or clients wanting some urgent advice or wanting some particular contract clauses put into the system. My home office is set up – I’ve got everything at home that I have here.
That’s the sort of service people want and need.
How did you get into conveyancing to begin with?
When I was in high school I was a bit of a sportsman and all I wanted to do was become a P.E. teacher. The only P.E. course was in Brisbane at the time and you needed the equivalent of a O.P. one (1) to make it in.
I decided to repeat year 12 to get a higher score, which I did. But as fate would have it I met a young lady called Mandy and that would change my entire outlook.
Chasing a P.E. teaching career would have meant leaving Townsville and leaving this beautiful girl behind so I decided to stay and instead started studying commerce, economics and law at JCU.
Luckily I married that girl and 41 years later she’s still putting up with me.
But all my friends had apprenticeships, so they had money and I didn’t and about eight months into studying I decided to leave uni and take up a job specialising in Wills and estates and property work at a the Union-fidelity Trustee Company.
When that role ended in around September 1981, a conveyancer role came up at a major local firm. I applied and was successful and as they say, the rest is history.
I’ve been at Purcell Taylor Lawyers now for the past 11 years and they are just wonderful people to work for.
“I loved the thrill of the chase, I still do. But I’m glad to be getting out now, I think my used by date recently passed and I have other things on my mind.”
How has conveyancing changed over the years?
It has changed dramatically. Up until about seven or eight years ago you would have the local bank manager attend settlements with a bank cheque and they would take such pride in doing a personal job with clients.
Then is started to become centralised in larger cities and we lost a lot of the local representatives. Nowadays we’re also dealing with people offshore. So the personal touch has definitely been lost over the years.
The process itself has also changed and there are lot more hoops to jump through just to to organise a settlement. Soon it will all shift again to an electronic system, which is the way of the future in conveyancing.
So, I’m getting out just at the right time so that I don’t have to learn it (laughs).
Why have you chosen to retire now?
This (retirement) has been in planning for over 12 months. I was actually supposed to retire in January but I stayed on until Purcell Taylor were able to bring together the right conveyancing team and I’m happy to move on now.
My wife Mandy retired two months ago and she’s saying ‘where the heck are you?’ (laughs).
What does a conveyancing legend do in retirement?
We’ve both worked hard and also raised two beautiful girls together who are both married now, so it’s just us at home.
Mandy and I have plans to do some travelling around Queensland (COVID-permitting). My family has a little house in Cardwell so we go up there and do some fishing, play a bit of golf and generally just kick back and enjoy time with family.
Read More →
Reporting child sexual abuse – the law
Failure to report now a criminal offence
Reporting child sexual abuse – changes to the Queensland Criminal Code to better protect children from sexual abuse
Section 229BC of the Criminal Code (Qld) now makes it an offence for an adult to fail to report information to police about child sexual abuse, in circumstances where the adult has a reasonable belief or ought reasonably to cause the adult to believe, that a child has been offended against or is a victim of child sexual abuse.
So here are some need-to-know facts about the new law:
Why change the law?
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (‘the Royal Commission’) conducted an extensive five-year (between 2012 and 2017) inquiry.
The result was 85 recommendations aimed at reforming the criminal justice system in Australia to provide fairer responses to victims of institutional child sexual abuse.
The recommendations covered police and prosecution responses; sentences and appeals; evidence of complainants; and relevantly, the recommendation of ‘failure to report’ and ‘failure to protect’ offences (Recommendations 33-35).
These offences were recommended in light of the under-reporting of child sexual abuse within an institutional setting to external governmental authorities where abuse was known or suspected.
In adopting the ‘failure to report’ recommendation, the Queensland Government has made it mandatory for adults (anyone over 18 years of age) to disclose information to a police officer about child sexual abuse (past or present).
This is irrespective if the alleged child abuse is within an institutional setting.
When does this law come into play?
It came into effect on 5 July 2021.
This means that if you are an adult who has gained relevant information about child sexual abuse on or after 5 July 2021, you may be subject to this mandatory reporting obligation.
This means that if you are an adult who has gained relevant information about child sexual abuse on or after 5 July 2021, you may be subject to this mandatory reporting obligation.
How do you know if you have to report information about child sexual abuse?
If a person meets the following criteria, they may be required to disclose information to a police officer:
- The person is 18 years of age or older (‘the adult’); and
- The adult has gained information which causes them to believe on reasonable grounds or ought reasonably to cause them to believe, that a sexual offence is being or has been committed against a child by another adult; and
- The adult gained this information on or after 5 July 2021.
What is ‘reasonable belief’?
A reasonable belief is not defined in the legislation. In simple terms, a reasonable belief is a belief that a reasonable person would form with the same information and in the same situation. A reasonable belief is always dependent on the circumstances.
Information which may form a reasonable belief includes a child disclosing they are currently a victim of child sexual abuse.
Are there any exceptions/excuses to this offence?
Yes. There are some circumstances where an adult does not have to report information about child sexual abuse to police.
These exceptions include:
- The adult believes, on reasonable grounds, that the information has already been disclosed to police (for example, if the adult was made aware of the child sexual abuse by the child’s teacher and such information has already been reported to police); or
- The adult has already reported the information under the Child Protection Act; the Educational (General Provisions) Act or the Youth Justice Act or believes on reasonable grounds that another person has done or will report under these Acts (for example, you are a schoolteacher who has gained information about child sexual abuse and you have reported this information to your Principal); or
- The adult has gained the information from an adult victim (who discloses that they were sexually abused as a child) however the adult reasonably believes the adult victim does not want this information disclosed to a police officer (for example, the adult victim explicitly states they do not want to make a complaint); or
- The adult reasonably believes that by disclosing the information to police would endanger the safety of the adult or another person (other than the alleged offender); or
- Failure to disclose the information to police is a reasonable response in the circumstances.
Will there be consequences to the adult who discloses information to police about child sexual abuse?
Providing the adult discloses the information in ‘good faith’, the adult is not liable civilly, criminally or under any administrative process for making the disclosure to police.
What is the penalty?
The maximum penalty for this offence is three (3) years imprisonment. The offence is classified as a misdemeanour and therefore can be disposed of summarily (that is, in the Magistrates Court).
How to report
I may have a reasonable belief about child sexual abuse, so how do I report this information?
You can attend or telephone your local police station and speak with a Police Officer.
You can also contact PoliceLink on 131 444 or in an emergency situation contact 000.
Remember, you must disclose the information to a police officer as soon as reasonably practicable after you have the belief or ought to reasonably have the belief.
If you are unsure if you must report information to police, seek legal advice.
What happens if I have been charged with this offence?
If you are being investigated and/or charged in relation to this offence, it is important that you immediately seek advice from a lawyer with criminal law experience.
For more information:
You can check out:
- The Royal Commission’s Final Report at: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report
- The Royal Commission’s Final Report Recommendations at: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/recommendations
- The Queensland Government Website – ‘Failing to report sexual offences against children’. https://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/types-of-crime/sexual-offences-against-children/failure-to-report
JAMIE SCUDERI | Associate
Ph: (07) 4758 5858
E: jamie.scuderi@purcelltaylor.com.au
This post contains general advice. Each circumstance will vary and must be considered based on its individual facts. Please obtain legal advice as necessary.
Read More →
COVID-19 and the workplace – FAQs
COVID-19 and the workplace have provided a constant source of change over 12 months for both employers and employees.
We’ve put together some FAQs to help you navigate this ever-changing landscape in the workplace.
Your questions around payment of employees, mandatory testing and vaccination and more are answered below.
Lockdown – COVID-19 in the workplace
Q: Can an employer stand employees down during lockdown?
A: Employers can stand down employees where:
- The business has closed because of an enforceable government direction (which means the employee/s cannot be usefully employed, even at another location); or
- there is a stoppage of work due to lack of supply for which the employer cannot be held responsible.
It is not lawful to stand down an employee because of a deterioration of business.
Before standing down, an employer should communicate with their employees. This should include whether a working from home arrangement can be applied, whether a change of duties, hours or rosters can be implemented or taking paid or unpaid leave is an option.
The Fair Work Commission provides a useful stand down CHECKLIST.
Q: Are employers required to pay employees during stand down?
A: Employers are not required to pay employees during a stand down unless:
- the employee is able to work from home (and the employer agrees);
- the employee takes annual leave;
- the employee takes long service leave (if applicable); or
- the employee takes annual leave at half pay (if agreed or covered by relevant Award).
An employee is not entitled to sick, carer or compassionate leave during stand down.
Q: When can employees work from home during lockdown?
A: If the type of work allows your staff to complete their roles from home, then employees are entitled to work from home and at the same pay as if physically attending the workplace.
- However, it is important to consider both the employer’s and employee’s specific circumstances and come to agreement jointly about how working from home will operate. Good communication is paramount.
- Employers must ensure the arrangement is compliant with any of the following applicable industrial instruments:
- Employment contract
- Modern Award
- Enterprise Agreement
- Workplace Policy
Q: What options are available for employees if the workplace is not an “Essential business activity’ and not permitted to operate during lockdown? ?
A: Discuss whether working from home is an option. If not, discuss leave options:
- employees can take annual leave;
- employees can take long service leave (if applicable); or
- annual leave at half pay (if agreed or covered by a relevant Award).
Self-isolation – COVID-19 and the workplace
Q: Are employers required to pay employees while they are in self-isolation?
A: Employers are not required to pay employees during self-isolation (even if it is a government-enforced direction), unless:
- the employee is able to work from home (and the employer agrees);
- the employee is sick and takes sick leave;
- the employee takes annual leave;
- the employee takes long service leave (if applicable); or
- the employee is entitled to take annual leave at half pay (if agreed or covered by relevant Award).
Alternatively, an employee may be entitled to take unpaid pandemic leave (if agreed or covered by relevant Award).
Q: If an employee is not entitled to unpaid pandemic leave, do they have to take annual leave for the period of self-isolation?
A: If an employee is not entitled to take unpaid pandemic leave, the employee will be required to request one of the following options to be lawfully absent from the workplace, as follows:
- working from home (if the employer agrees);
- if the employee is sick, request sick leave;
- request long service leave (if applicable);
- request annual leave; or
- request annual leave at half pay (if agreed or covered by relevant Award).
Q: Can an employer require an employee to be tested for COVID-19?
A: The Fair Work Commissioner provides that an employer can require a person to get tested for COVID-19 provided it is a lawful and reasonable direction.
- This could include if the employee has been exposed to someone who has had COVID-19, they present all or most of the relevant symptoms of COVID-19 or have been within an Impacted Area (Hotspot). This is in-line with their duty to maintain workplace health and safety in the workplace.
Q: Are employees required to stay away from the workplace following a COVID-19 test and, if so, do they get paid?
A: Yes, employees are required to self-isolate and therefore stay away from the workplace pending results of a COVID-19 test. Employers are not required to pay employees while waiting for the results of a COVID-19 test, unless:
- the employee is able to work from home (and the employer agrees);
- the employee is sick and takes sick leave;
- the employee takes annual leave;
- the employee takes long service leave (if applicable); or
- the employee is entitled to take annual leave at half pay (if agreed or covered by relevant Award).
Alternatively, an employee may be entitled to take unpaid pandemic leave (if agreed or covered by relevant Award).
If the employee tests positive for COVID-19, they are entitled to take sick leave.
Q: If an employee is not entitled to unpaid pandemic leave, do they have to take annual leave while waiting for their COVID-19 test result?
A: If an employee is not entitled to take unpaid pandemic leave, the employee will be required to request one of the following options to be lawfully absent from the workplace, as follows:
- working from home (if the employer agrees);
- if the employee is sick, request sick leave;
- request annual leave; or
- request annual leave at half pay (if agreed or covered by relevant Award).
Helpfully, results of COVID-19 testing are generally received quickly.
Vaccination – COVID-19 and the workplace
Q: Can an employer require an employee to get a COVID-19 vaccination?
A: In some situations:
- In specific industries, the Queensland Government has made it mandatory for some workers to get vaccinations. This generally affects:
- Health care workers; and
- Queensland Ambulance services.
- Where there is an agreement requiring vaccination.
- This may include when an employment contract, enterprise agreement or other registered agreement includes a provision requiring the employee to get vaccinated specifically for COVID-19.
- If there is no agreement, an employer can require an employee to get a COVID-19 vaccination if the direction is lawful and reasonable. This is assessed on the facts of each case.
- This may include work where the employee interacts with persons who are at increased risk of being infected or come into close contact with people who have increased vulnerability such as border security, hotel quarantine or healthcare or aged care.
- Employers must be careful to not breach anti-discrimination laws. The employer must not treat an employee unfavourably if they have not consented to being vaccinated by reason of, for example, disability, pregnancy or political opinion.
- Examples of discrimination may include requiring an employee who has an underlying health condition putting them at increased risk of complications should they receive the vaccine or requiring an employee who is immunocompromised to receive a vaccine.
- Should an employee refuse to receive the vaccine based upon their belief that the vaccine is not safe, Employers should exercise caution. The law is unclear about whether vaccine hesitancy is a valid objection as a political belief. Employees should receive appropriate legal advice in this instance.
When in doubt in this regard, employers and employees should seek appropriate legal advice.
Q: Can an employee take sick leave if feeling unwell following a vaccination?
A: Yes.
General
Q: Can an employee refuse to come into work if they feel unsafe because of COVID-19?
A: If an employer gives an employee a lawful direction to perform work and the direction is reasonable and in line with the employer’s legal obligations, then an employee cannot refuse.
- Should the employee continue to refuse, the employer may be entitled to take disciplinary action against the employee which, depending on the circumstances, can include termination of employment. However, termination must be undertaken in accordance with the relevant legislation / industrial instrument.
- Should an employee hold reasonable concern about their health or safety it may be reasonable to refuse. However, legal advice should be sought.
- If the employee is concerned, efforts should be made to provide alternative workplace arrangements where possible.
Penalties for breach
Q: Are there any penalties for breaching the health directions?
A: Yes, there are fines and potential imprisonment.
Fines for breaching quarantine or self-isolation apply.A person who is required to quarantine or isolate under a health direction must comply with the terms of the direction to quarantine or isolate and may not leave, or receive visitors at the premises in which they are quarantining or isolating unless permitted under the terms of those orders or directions.
Failure to comply with these terms results in an offence under s 362D of the Public Health Act 2005.
The maximum penalty is a $13,785 fine or six months imprisonment.
KETA ROSEBY | Consultant
Ph: (07) 4758 5858
E: keta.roseby@purcelltaylor.com.au
This post contains general advice. Each circumstance will vary and must be considered based on its individual facts. Please obtain legal advice as necessary.
Biggest Morning Tea
Cancer impacts so many of us in our community and it is a cause close to our team’s heart.
Each year we take part in the Cancer Council’s Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea fundraiser to support cancer research.
Townsville Community Law
Purcell Taylor Lawyers is a proud supporter of Townsville Community Law.
Townsville Community Law’s mission is to reduce inequality through positive legal and social change. They do this by providing greater access to justice through their services.
Purcell Taylor Lawyers supports their mission through pro bono work including free legal advice clinics.
Director Melody Cornish is a Townsville Community Law Life Member.
Out and about
Being active members of our community is important to us.
Led by our Directors Andrew Peel and Melody Cornish our team supports local events, other Townsville businesses and non-profit organisations.
Junior sport
As a community-minded firm it’s important to us to give back to our community.
Junior sport brings the community together and gives our young people fitness, friendship and resilience benefits.
Purcell Taylor Lawyers is a proud supporter of junior sport through sponsorship of Brothers Junior Rugby Union.
Our team of local lawyers are active and out in the community with their families through a number of clubs in a variety of sports across the region, including Brothers Junior Rugby League.
Beachathon fundraiser
Purcell Taylor Lawyers proudly supports the annual Beachathon event held by St Joseph’s Catholic School The Strand.
Beachathon raises money for the St Vincent de Paul Society. to support those in need in the community.
Our team supports the cause through involvement in the Beachathon luncheon and Strand walk.
