代写：澳大利亚的雇佣法律
《劳资关系法》(Industrial Relations Act)援引了雇主的责任，以确保员工有一个安全的工作场所。
《职业健康与安全法》还规定，IS有责任在经济上对她进行补偿，并在这个阶段继续为她提供工作支持。
澳大利亚的国家就业标准(NES)明确强调，当整个工作开始时，将雇佣合同移交给员工是至关重要的。自从他们在一起工作的历史演变以来，马里昂和Technicalities Ltd .都没有费心签订员工合同。这使得决定马里昂在这段时间内必须提高对薪资的要求成为一个问题。
《职业健康与安全法》指出，每一个雇主都有责任让雇员接受各种形式的培训，以鼓励他们保持安全，轻松处理紧急情况。
玛丽安在工作中受伤，终止她的工作是非常违法的。工伤法规定，在伤者完全康复之前，公司必须雇用她。
1987年的《工人补偿法》还规定，无论雇员受伤后身在何处，都应由is和Technicalities Ltd .支付补偿费。
雇主让雇员赔偿所面临的损失，然后不事先通知就让她失业，这是不公平的。
代写：澳大利亚的雇佣法律
IS于2015年12月初在网上发布的这则广告是非法的，因为她一旦从工作场所事故中恢复过来，就已经有资格加入，而且雇主和雇员的合同严格反对IS做出的这一决定。《2009年公平工作法》坚持认为，雇主在雇员因工作场所伤害而缺席时终止其雇佣是非法的。雇主有责任陪同她旅行，为她的康复和医疗费用补偿，直到她完全康复。
公平工作委员会明确指出，当雇主以不公平的理由解雇雇员时，雇员有权向IS及Technicalities Ltd.提出诉讼。这个案件一定会给马里恩带来正义。
应用程序
根据1987年的《工人补偿法》，明确规定，Technicalities Ltd .应指示马里恩公司按日或周对损失的收入进行补偿，或应一次性对损失进行补偿。另外，IS应该主动去激励和帮助马里昂重返工作岗位。《1998年工人补偿法》还规定，这些受害者有权就以下4个问题提出索赔:
的利润损失,
身体伤害
医疗及康复费用
依赖家庭
在这种情况下，不公平解雇是一个明显的问题，因为她既没有事先得到通知，也没有得到必要的补偿福利。然而，有一点需要注意。他们从未签订过正式合同。由于马里昂只是一个普通的办公室职员，她从来没有得到过适用于工作场所双方的合同条款。这可以由马里昂声称，因为她继续对就业的类型有疑问。
代写：澳大利亚的雇佣法律
The Industrial Relations Act cites the accountability of employer to ensure a safe workplace for the employees.
The Occupational Health and Safety Act also states the liability of IS to compensate financially and support her with ongoing jobs at this stage.
The national employment standards (NES) in Australia clearly highlights that it is essential to handover the employee with contract of employment when the entire job commences. Since the evolution of their togetherness at workplace, neither Marion nor Technicalities Ltd bothered to enter into workers contract. This makes it a problem to decide on the period up to which Marion will have to raise voice for the compensation.
Occupational Health and Safety Act indicates that every employer is liable to expose the employee to varied forms of training that will encourage them to remain safe and handle emergencies at an ease.
It is highly illegal to terminate Marion’s employment when she was injured while at work. Workplace injuries law states that the company has to engage the injured person till she is completely rehabilitated.
Workers Compensation Act 1987 also insists that compensation is payable by IS and Technicalities Ltd no matter where the employee is present post the injury.
It is unfair for the employer to let employee reimburse for the damages faced and then leave her jobless without any prior notice.
代写：澳大利亚的雇佣法律
The advertisement posted by IS online in early December 2015 is unlawful because she is already entitled to join once she is rehabilitated from the workplace accident and the employer – employee contract strictly opposes this decision made by IS. Fair Work Act 2009 insists that it is unlawful for an employer to discontinue the employment of a person when she is absent due to workplace injury. The employer is accountable to travel with her for her rehabilitation and medical expense compensation till she completely recovers.
Fair Work Commission clearly states that when a reason stated by employer for the dismissal of employee to be unjust, the employee has every right to file a case against IS and Technicalities Ltd. This case will certainly offer justice to Marion.
Application
Applying Workers Compensation Act 1987, it is clear that Technicalities Ltd should instruct IS to compensate for the earnings lost by Marion on daily or weekly basis or should compensate on lump sum basis. Additionally, IS should take the initiative to motivate and assist Marion to get back to work. Workers Compensation Act 1998 also states that such victims are entitled to raise claims for any of 4 issues:
Loss in earnings
Physical injuries
Medical and rehabilitation costs
Dependent family
Unfair dismissal is a clear issue in this case because she is neither informed in prior nor treated with necessary compensation benefits. However, there is one point to be noted. They have never entered into official contracts. As Marion was only considered as yet another office worker, she was never given the contractual terms that are applicable for both the sides within the workplace. This can be claimed by Marion as she continued to have the doubt of the type of employment.
