Hopefully she’s picked up by ten, only if they had a bigger news department.
1 Like
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
3 Likes
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?
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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).
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
That wouldn’t be seen as a suitable alternative for a mother. Suitable alternative would be something two days a week.
2 Likes
You’re nuts, erm, mischievous. 
Sorry @SydneyCityTV. She has already shown that she is a very capable reporter with her reporting style (she has a lot of authority) with her time at the US Bureau and her recent presenting stints during Summer has certainly been impressive. I think she is someone who deserves a major role at the network, and I think most of us here would agree with this as well.
4 Likes
A great reporter who is overcoming her demons and hopefully will win her battle (with the drinking - and maybe even the court case)
I agree. However, an employer doesn’t need to make an offer which is preferable for the employee. Seven argument is likely to be they offered her an alternative position, she turned it down.
You can’t blame her though, who would want a 5am bulletin position! When she’s been at the network in a more prominant position(s) for over a decade. A major step backwards & slap in the face 
1 Like
It doesn’t necessarily have to be preferable but it has to be suitable. See below explanation. Take particular note of “hours of work”
[quote]
Suitability of an employer’s offer
Industrial courts and tribunals have considered several factors when determining the suitability of an employer’s offer of alternative employment to an employee whose position has become redundant.
The test that is usually applied in this instance is an objective one, and should take into account each individual employee’s circumstance. This test should be applied when an employer is either trying to organise alternate employment with another employer, or trying to arrange other employment within the organisation.
From 1 July, 2009, these matters will be heard by Fair Work Australia.
Such factors relevant to a consideration of ‘suitability’ include:
Pay levels — if the salary offered for an alternate job is similar or the same as the redundant position, this could be viewed as suitable to the acceptability of the offer. Where there is a drop in salary, the tribunal would determine the reasonableness, or otherwise, of the lower salary;
Hours of work — where the offer involves a change of starting and finishing times, a change from shift work to day work, or vice-versa, or work on different days of the week, this may be deemed unsuitable, depending on the circumstances of the individual employee. The tribunal may take into account such factors as the employee’s family responsibilities when determining the suitability of the offer;
Nature of employment — the offer of part-time or casual employment to a current full-time employee may be deemed unsuitable. This may also fail on the basis of a lower salary level associated with these types of employment;
Employment status/seniority — the offer of a non-managerial position to a manager may be unsuitable as there is a certain ‘status’ associated with the current position. Such an offer could be viewed by a tribunal as a demotion;
Skills & qualifications — does the offer involve a position that the employee has the necessary skills and/or qualifications to perform? If not, the employer must have offered to provide the necessary training for the employee to acquire the necessary skills and/or qualifications;
Location of new offered position — where there is a relocation of the position, a tribunal will consider such factors as: the similarity of the job at the new location, the notice given to an employee(s) of the new location, whether the new location offers similar transport facilities, and the amount of additional time, if any, travelled by the employees to the new location;
Loss of fringe benefits — a tribunal, where relevant, may look at the overall impact of the offer of alternate employment on the employee’s contract of employment. The loss of benefits such as the provision of a company motor vehicle, share option plan, shift or penalty rates, bonus and commission payments, or regular overtime payments, may make the offer unsuitable despite the base salary remaining the same;
Job security — this can be a factor in the offer of casual work to an employee because, with casual employment, there is no guarantee of permanent employment. Also, if the new position offered is of a temporary nature, this could be viewed as unsuitable.[/quote]
Nat is back from holidays and co-hosting with Kochie, Eddy reading news and Ryan Phelan presenting sport this week.
2 Likes
Extended Sunrise to 10am on Australia Day 26 January.
Edit: Today is also extended.
3 Likes
Sunrise won week 2 by an average of 41,000 nationally including all markets except Sydney.
3 Likes