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.
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
It doesn’t necessarily have to be preferable but it has to be suitable. See below explanation. Take particular note of “hours of work”
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.
Extended Sunrise to 10am on Australia Day 26 January.
Edit: Today is also extended.
Sunrise won week 2 by an average of 41,000 nationally including all markets except Sydney.
let me know when david koche resigns then i will return other wise # boycott sunrise:)
Kind of agree with you, Kochie has had his day now
Kochie really should’ve stepped aside when Mel did IMO.
However, I will say that him & Natalie Barr seem to work OK as co-presenters judging by what I saw of this morning’s show. I’d still rather Sunrise be fronted by Nat & Berretts on a regular basis of course, but it did further reinforce my opinion that Nat really should’ve succeeded Mel instead of Sam.
The ratings would tend to disagree with your opinions. Sunrise’s numbers went up when Mel left and Kochie stayed and stayed that way until someone messed with the studio and graphics last year.
And a fix of graphics would see them smash the competition for good. They should look at the American ABC news graphics for something contemporary and non-intrusive. Less clutter on screen, the better for viewers.
Sam has been away on holidays for a lot of weeks now?
Twelve straight wins - last week with their biggest margin outside the Olympics in over a year - I think they would be too scared to change anything very much at this stage of their comeback.
Sam is returning from holidays next week.
Mark Riley co-hosting with Eddy on Saturday"s special extended edition from 6am-10am AEDT.
Unlike previous years, Sunrise will be remain at Martin Place this year with a studio auidence.