If he won ten thousand at the races, would his boss get a cut?

This entry was posted in Ethics and morality, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to If he won ten thousand at the races, would his boss get a cut?

  1. C.L. says:

    Australian courts have been grappling with the concept for the better part of a century.

    In 1937, a Western Australian railway ganger was killed by a train while crossing a line in their lunch break. Because they lived in a camp near the station, the court found it was during employment.

    ?

    Dear ABC reporter: his name was Robert Henderson. He was killed at Yarlook in 1935. The High Court decided the case in 1937.

  2. Lee says:

    Absolutely ridiculous.

  3. NFA says:

    I disagree C.L.

    He is “on call” and realizing that he was out of phone range, turned back.

    That he should not be allowed to freely walk around without supervision is more a reflection on the inadequacies of the employer’s employment policies.

    https://www.sparke.com.au/expertise/case-studies/hotel-sex-case-comcare-v-pvyw/

  4. Lee says:

    How about personal responsibility, not nanny-statism?

    The guy is a grifter, but the court let him get away with it.

  5. jupes says:

    Wow! The ABC uses ridiculous ‘gender’ pronouns as default now. They are rubbing our noses in it.

  6. NFA says:

    Lee says:
    7 December, 2022 at 4:02 pm

    How about personal responsibility, not nanny-statism?

    The guy is a grifter, but the court let him get away with it.

    Lee

    I’m just saying that sometimes, what can you do?

  7. Lee says:

    NFA, my comment was just a general one about the case, not meant as a reply or rebuttal to you.

  8. Christine says:

    The ridiculous, dumb pronoun substitution; needles to my eyes

  9. C.L. says:

    He is “on call” and realizing that he was out of phone range, turned back.

    Yes, that’s how the court read the event. I don’t know how the applicant established the truth of the turn-back, however.

  10. C.L. says:

    Wow! The ABC uses ridiculous ‘gender’ pronouns as default now.

    Only to dehumanise the man. Here is that par and the one following it:

    Australian courts have been grappling with the concept for the better part of a century.

    In 1937, a Western Australian railway ganger was killed by a train while crossing a line in their lunch break. Because they lived in a camp near the station, the court found it was during employment.

    More recently, there was the 2013 case of a Commonwealth Government worker who was on a work trip to a country town when a light fitting fell on her while she was having sex in a motel room. The High Court ultimately rejected her claim that this occurred in the course of her employment.

  11. Buccaneer says:

    She must have been one of the few government employees whose job doesn’t entail screwing taxpayers.

  12. Wyndham Dix says:

    The walk was a social outing to view a piece of real estate. Mr Nazar might equally have fallen off a ladder at home or suffered a serious injury while mowing the lawn there.

    This appeared in The Times 10 years ago; it is even more relevant today:-
    Common Sense

  13. Lee says:

    I absolutely refuse to use “they” or “their” for the singular; wokesters and the-never-fail-to-be-offended can get stuffed!

    Even morons know it is atrocious grammar, and I for one will not be a party to it.

  14. C.L. says:

    Not just poor grammar but laziness. Mr Henderson wasn’t killed in 1937. He was killed in 1935. The High Court case was 1937. The journalist couldn’t be bothered doing what I did – which was to take five seconds to Google the decision.

    A billion dollars a year.

  15. NFA says:

    Lee says:
    7 December, 2022 at 8:00 pm

    NFA, my comment was just a general one about the case, not meant as a reply or rebuttal to you.

    Lee

    Didn’t take it as anything else.

  16. Not Trampis says:

    you clowns obviously do not know any doctors on call at every hospital, On call means on call. If you are called you have to go.

  17. Petros says:

    Tramp misses the point again. Surprise surprise.

  18. Boambee John says:

    Petros

    Non Mentis is spherical, he has no point.

  19. Buccaneer says:

    Non Mentis is spherical, he has no point.

    It appears the Urban Dictionary backs up your assessment BJ.

  20. dover_beach says:

    Absurd decision, and the discussion of the element ‘on call’ is irrelevant. If I am ‘on call’ and playing a round of golf and pull a muscle while driving off the 4th tee, what relevance does being ‘on call’ have? Alternatively, what is the relevance of turning back if I notice, say, while walking to the 10th tee, that I am now out of range and slip and fall on a log when walking back into range? If there is no case re the former, why is there in the latter? Or is the argument that whatever you are doing while ‘on call’ is subject to worker’s compensation?

  21. Not Trampis says:

    duh,

    you would be playing golf if you were on call.
    It appears few people understand what being on call means

  22. dover_beach says:

    you would be playing golf if you were on call.
    It appears few people understand what being on call means

    Homer, this fellow was actually on a trail in the country side walking with his wife while ‘on call’, and your going to pretend that doctors have never played a round of golf while ‘on call’ is implausible. Please.

  23. Not Trampis says:

    My father in law when he was alive was on call to blayney hospital where he had to do work during the early hours of the morning. My next door neighbor does the same at blacktown hospital so i know something about doctors being on call.
    They have to be ready to travel when the call comes in and they cannot drink alcohol also.
    If this person was thus and was called up then he would be disciplined for not being ready..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *