@David of course you’re right about contract renewals and it is not the first time someones contract hasn’t been renewed while on maternity leave.
My point is Seven will definitely cope a lot of flak because in my view her going public on ABC Australian Story about her alcoholism will come into play with her case against Seven. She gained a lot of public support from that interview and everyone will continue that support especially now to make sure she remains strong mentality.


Cummins has been with the network for thirteen years. Is that really the attitude Seven takes to their own? She was on maternity leave FFS.


[quote=“spw68, post:2037, topic:69”]
[Monique] did well but she wasn’t “that” good :slight_smile:
[/quote] I wasn’t suggesting should have replaced Mel but perhaps had Nuala Hafner’s entertainment gig or something. I believe though she is still better with Kochie than Sam is.

[quote=“nickatnights, post:2040, topic:69”]
…I feel sorry for Eddy as the pressure is really on her to make the show work - she does a darn good job though. The only person at Channel 7 who is enjoying Denham’s efforts at hosting Sunrise this morning is Andrew O’Keefe.
[/quote] You do have to remember this is Denham’s first time co-hosting and just his second weekend on the show whereas Eddy has been with Sunrise for some 13 years. But I do agree Eddy does a great job co-hosting.

[quote=“mattrobts, topic:69”]
Talitha Cummins [has been sacked]
[/quote] It is a real shame about Talitha and I hope she is picked up elsewhere. I expect Sally Bowrey to become WS newsreader when she returns from maternity leave.


I think Denham is doing a lot better as co-host this week than he did as a newsreader last week. He seems much better with banter and casual chat than just reading off the teleprompter.


Seven might be in some trouble. This is from Fairwork:

Long term casual employees
Some casual employees work regular hours or the same days each week for a long period and become ‘long term casuals’.

Long term casuals stay as casual employees unless they formally change to full-time or part-time employment. They don’t automatically become permanent employees, even if they are called ‘permanent casual’. They get their casual entitlements regardless of how regularly they work or how long they work for.

After 12 months of regular employment, and if it’s likely the regular employment will continue, a casual employee can:

request flexible working arrangements
take parental leave.

They don’t get paid leave or notice of termination, even if they work regularly for a long time.[/quote]


That’s if Sally doesn’t get sacked too, like Talitha has been while on maternity leave.


Think the different is one is a casual and one is employed permanently. Angela Cox coming back has created a surplus of presenters without enough gigs.

Not cool about Talitha. Casual contracts are by their nature more risky for this very reason.


I think Sally isn’t a freelance right?

On another note, although I’m still disgusted by the way Talitha was demoted without any warning, I’m glad they found a role for Angela Cox, who many would agree deserve a permanent presenting role on the network.


Hopefully she’s picked up by ten, only if they had a bigger news department.


I’ve been viewing this website for many years now and decided to join, as stated above there is a surplus of presenters without enough gigs. Personally i think Talitha should of been kept on the show and put Angela elsewhere. My next question is what will happen to Sarah Cumming on the Daily Edition when Sally returns and if Sarah returns presumably to Seven News on weekends? what happens to Angie and it goes on in a domino effect


No notice of termination though.

Although if the employee and employer arranged parental leave (assuming it’s unpaid), I’m guessing a stipulation under Fair Work would be that an employee has to return from leave before being terminated?


Whilst she was casual, in the eyes of Fairwork her hours would be considered “regular and systematic”

[quote]Can a Casual Employee claim Unfair Dismissal?
Most employers are aware that employees employed under permanent type arrangements, such as full-time and part-time employees, are entitled to file an unfair dismissal claim when their employment is terminated in circumstances that they believe to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Furthermore, this is only available to employees that have served at least the minimum qualifying period of 6 or 12 months, depending on the total number of employees employed by the employer.

Does a casual employee have the same rights as permanent type employees in relation to unfair dismissal?

The answer is yes they do. The only difference is that, in relation to the minimum qualifying period, a period of service as a casual employee does not count towards the employee’s period of employment unless:

the employment as a casual employee was on a regular and systematic basis; and
during the period of service as a casual employee, the employee had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment by the employer on a regular and systematic basis.
Although the Fair Work Act 2009 does not provide us with a definition of what casual employment on a ‘regular and systematic basis’ is, case law provides us with some guidance in this respect.

In Ponce v DJT Staff Management Services Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 2078, the Commission established the following principles:

a casual employee that works varying hours from week-to-week or month-to-month, and / or has different starting and finishing times, is not conclusive evidence of irregular non-systematic employment
unpredictable but frequent casual work may constitute regular and systematic employment
if the number of hours worked are small, and the gap between days and times worked is long and irregular, this is evidence of an irregular and non-systematic casual employment.
In any event, the Commission will generally analyse the circumstances of each case on its own merits.

Employers that are considering terminating a casual employee should first examine that employee’s pattern of work to determine whether he or she may be entitled to make an unfair dismissal claim due to having been employed on a regular and systematic basis.

Note that even if a casual employee has been working on a regular and systematic basis from the beginning of their employment, the employee will still need to have served at least the minimum qualifying period before being entitled to file an unfair dismissal claim.[/quote]


That’s so bizarre (Talitha Cummins)?

Clearly network executives prefer recently returned US Correspondent Angela Cox.

This has happened before (Tracy Spicer & Jessica Rowe at Ch 10 ring a bell?)


Surely I’m not the only one who doesn’t see the appeal in Angela Cox?

Granted, I haven’t seen much of her presenting but her reporting style is rather cold IMO.


I agree with you. One of my least favourite reporters, exactly for that reason. I’ve never really liked her, even before she went to the US


Seven may be able to get away with it because they offered her the 5am gig and she declined it.


Except that Talitha was not a casual employee, she was on some sort of fixed term contract which came to a natural conclusion.

She wasn’t dismissed at all. Seven simply chose not to renew her contract, the end of which just happened to fall partway through her “maternity leave” (using that term loosely here).


Huh? Jessica jumped ship to Nine. Ten took her to court for breach of contract.

Christine Spitiri’s contract wasn’t renewed at Nine when she was on maternity leave. She sued Nine - her case involved allegations of racism and sexual harassment by the news boss of the time. She received a six figure settlement.


That wouldn’t be seen as a suitable alternative for a mother. Suitable alternative would be something two days a week.


You’re nuts, erm, mischievous. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: