Disability and Neurodivergence at Work — Australia

No. The legal definition covers total or partial loss of bodily or mental functions and other situations expressly listed. An assessment should not be limited to what is visible.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definition of disability, (a)

They can be, if the specific situation falls within the legal definition. The word neurodivergence does not decide the outcome on its own, nor does it allow HR to make a diagnosis.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definition of disability, (f)

Yes. The definition includes a disability that presently exists and one that existed in the past, even if it no longer exists. Protection cannot be excluded for that reason alone.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definition of disability, (h)–(i)

Yes. The definition covers that possibility, including a genetic predisposition. This does not allow candidates to be excluded on assumptions about their future health.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definition of disability, (j)

The definition also includes a disability imputed to a person. A detrimental decision based on that imputation may be covered.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definition of disability, (k)

Yes. The definition includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of a covered disability. Each case and the relevant adjustments must be analysed, without assuming that all behaviour has that origin.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), final paragraph of the definition of disability

Yes. The law extends protection to a person who has an associate with disability. The relationship covered by the definition and the reason for the treatment must be established.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 7(1)

Yes. The law extends the analysis to having a carer or assistant, an assistance animal or a disability aid. The relevant definitions and exceptions must be checked.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 8(1)

No. One of the legal pathways requires training to alleviate the effect of the disability and appropriate standards of hygiene and behaviour. There are also accreditation pathways; it is not presumed that any pet meets the requirements.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 9(2)(c)

It can be equipment, including a palliative or therapeutic device, that the person uses and that helps to alleviate the effect of their disability. Its actual function must be assessed.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 9(3)

It is less favourable treatment because of the disability than a person without that disability would receive in circumstances that are not materially different. The analysis requires comparing the relevant situations.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 5(1)

Not necessarily. The definition also covers proposing less favourable treatment. The other legal elements of the case must still be established.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 5(1)

Yes, when not making the adjustment has, or would have, the effect of less favourable treatment required by the provision. Recording the request is not enough: its effects and the response must be assessed.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 5(2)(a)–(b)

No. The law defines a reasonable adjustment by reference to unjustifiable hardship. The circumstances and alternatives of the case must be analysed; the label given to the request does not settle on its own whether it must be made.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definition of reasonable adjustment

Yes. A seemingly general requirement can disadvantage people with disability if, because of that disability, they cannot or do not comply with it. The reasonableness defence provided by the law must also be considered.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 6(1)(a)–(c)

Yes. The provision covers a person who could only comply with a requirement if reasonable adjustments were made, and is disadvantaged when they are not made. Barriers and alternatives should be assessed before excluding the person.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 6(2)(b)–(c)

No. The law provides a defence if the requirement or condition is reasonable having regard to the circumstances. That reasonableness must be proven, not assumed.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 6(3)

The person who requires, or proposes to require, compliance with it. HR should keep the reasons and evidence for the requirement and for the alternatives considered.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 6(4)

No. It can be one of several reasons, even if it is not the dominant or substantial one. Adding another explanation does not automatically remove the discrimination analysis.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 10

No. It must be considered together with the circumstances of the case, including the financial position of whoever must make it. Saying that the adjustment has a cost is not enough.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 11(1)(c)

Yes. The availability of financial and other assistance is a legal factor. Whether assistance exists must be checked for the case, without promising a specific subsidy.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 11(1)(d)

The person claiming it. It is advisable to document the circumstances, costs, benefits and support considered, instead of giving a general refusal.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 11(2)

No. It also covers the arrangements made for recruitment and the decision about who should be offered employment, within the scope and exceptions of the law.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 15(1)(a)–(b)

Yes. The prohibition also covers the terms on which employment is offered. The offer must be reviewed, not only the decision to hire.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 15(1)(c)

The law prohibits denying or limiting opportunities for promotion because of disability. The assessment must look at the specific role and at the relevant exceptions and adjustments.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 15(2)(b)

Yes. Training is one of the employment benefits expressly covered. The conditions of access and any barriers to taking part must be reviewed.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 15(2)(b)

Yes. The prohibition includes dismissal because of disability and other detriment at work. The real reasons and the legal exceptions must be analysed, without concluding that any termination of a person with disability is automatically unlawful.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 15(2)(c)–(d)

The law prohibits a principal from discriminating against a contract worker because of disability, both in the terms on which the work is allowed and by not allowing them to work or continue working. That legal relationship must be established.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 17(a)–(b)

Yes. They cannot discriminate because of disability by refusing their services, in the terms on which they offer them or in the way they provide them. The obligation is not limited to the business that will hire.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 21(1)(a)–(c)

Yes. It covers authorities that grant or renew authorisations or professional qualifications. The inherent requirements and applicable exceptions must be checked.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 19(a)

The provision prohibits that discrimination by the organisations within its definition, both in admitting members and in the terms of admission.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 20(1)(a)–(b)

The exception requires that the person could not carry out the inherent requirements of the work even with the relevant reasonable adjustments. The essential functions should be identified and supports assessed before deciding.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 21A(1)(b)

Yes. The law requires taking into account their training, qualifications and experience relevant to the particular work. That assessment cannot be replaced by a stereotype.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 21A(2)(a)

Yes. The provision includes their work performance when they already work for the decision-maker. It must be assessed together with the other relevant factors.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 21A(2)(b)

No. It has express limits for certain opportunities and detriments. Deciding who gets a promotion or transfer must be distinguished from denying other protected benefits.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 21A(4)(a)

Yes. The section prohibits an employer from harassing an employee in relation to their disability. The specific facts must be recorded and reviewed, not treated as part of the job.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 35(1)

Yes. It covers harassment of a person employed by the same employer in relation to their disability. It is not limited to a reporting relationship.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 35(2)

Yes. The section also protects people seeking employment from harassment in relation to their disability by the persons it covers.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 35(3)

The law prohibits victimisation, which covers detriment or threats linked to having made, or proposing to make, a complaint under the relevant provisions. Indirect retaliation must also be reviewed.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 58A(1)–(2)(a)

Yes. Protection against victimisation covers having appeared, or proposing to appear, as a witness in the relevant proceedings.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 58A(2)(e)

Not indiscriminately. The provision restricts disability-related requests and provides exceptions for non-discriminatory purposes, such as assessing inherent requirements or adjustments. The need for the information and its use must be justified.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 30(2)–(3), example

Yes. The law also covers the means of access to premises that the public or a section of the public may enter or use. The features of the premises, the technical standards and applicable exceptions must be checked.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 23(c)

No. It allows them to operate concurrently where applicable. Before making a complaint or designing a policy, the local law and the rules on simultaneous proceedings must also be identified.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 13(3)

Yes. The provision reaches anyone who causes, instructs, induces, aids or permits the unlawful act covered. Liability is not necessarily limited to whoever carries out the final decision.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 122

Yes, for conduct within the scope of their actual or apparent authority, with the defence available to whoever proves reasonable precautions and due diligence. A written policy alone does not prove that it was applied.Law: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 123(2)

Under the national system, and if they meet the requirements of the section, yes. They can request changes relating to their disability. This pathway must be distinguished from the duty to make adjustments under anti-discrimination law.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 65(1), (1A)(c)

They can if they are a carer in the legal sense and meet the other requirements. Not every family relationship establishes that status on its own.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 65(1A)(b)

At least 12 months of continuous service immediately before the request. That requirement belongs to this legal pathway and does not automatically apply to adjustments under anti-discrimination law.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 65(2)(a)

Yes, if they have worked on a regular basis during the legal period and have a reasonable expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis. Not every casual engagement meets those requirements.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 65(2)(b)

In writing, setting out the change requested and the reasons for it. It is advisable to keep a copy with the date it was received.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 65(3)

21 days, with a written response, for a request covered by section 65. That time limit must not be confused with the assessment of other adjustment requests.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 65A(1)

Yes. If it arises from the discussion and both parties agree, the response must set out that change. Its implementation should be made clear.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 65A(2)(b)

A refusal requires discussing the request, genuinely trying to reach agreement, considering the consequences for the employee and relying on reasonable business grounds. An automatic refusal is not enough.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 65A(3)

It must set out the particular business grounds and explain how they apply to the request. It must also include the other matters and alternatives required by the section.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 65A(6)(b)

The pathway first requires trying to resolve the dispute through discussions at the workplace. If it is not resolved, a party can refer it to the Fair Work Commission, under the requirements of the section.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 65B(2)–(3)

Yes. This part of the federal law is not intended to exclude more beneficial state or territory entitlements. The law that actually applies to the employment must be identified.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 66

For covered employees who are not casuals, the law provides 10 days for each year of service. It accrues according to ordinary hours and carries over from year to year; the equivalent for the actual work pattern must be calculated.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 96(1)–(2)

Not because of the condition alone. Personal leave is used when the person is not fit for work because of a personal illness or injury, meeting the notice and evidence requirements.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 97(a)

The law provides two days for each permissible occasion of illness, injury or unexpected emergency affecting an immediate family or household member. It cannot be taken during a period in which paid carer’s leave is available.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 102 and 103(3)

Yes. Notice must be given as soon as practicable and state the period, or expected period, of leave. If the employer requires it, evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person must be given.Law: Fair Work Act 2009, 107(1)–(3)

By a written complaint alleging acts, omissions or practices of unlawful discrimination. What happened must be specified; mentioning a workplace disagreement without explaining its link with discrimination is not enough.Law: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46P(1)

Details of the alleged acts, omissions or practices, as fully as practicable. It helps to set out the facts in order and keep the documents that support them.Law: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46P(1B)

Yes. The law allows a person or trade union to lodge a complaint on behalf of one or more people affected. The representation and the scope of the case must be established.Law: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46P(2)(c)

It must take reasonable steps to provide appropriate assistance when the conditions of that section are met. The request for help can explain the barrier to framing or writing the complaint.Law: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46P(4)

No. Unless it is terminated earlier on the legal grounds, the pathway involves inquiring into the complaint and attempting to conciliate it. Termination and any access to the courts have their own requirements.Law: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PF(1)(c)

It is not an automatic bar in that clause, but it is a ground on which the President may terminate the complaint. Time limits should be checked without delaying the complaint.Law: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PH(1)(b)

Yes. The President must notify the complainants in writing of the termination and the reasons for it. That notice matters when assessing the next step.Law: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PH(2)

The provision sets 60 days from the date the notice was issued, or any further time the court allows. Leave of the court and any applicable legal exceptions must also be checked.Law: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PO(2) and (3A)

If it finds unlawful discrimination, it can order compensation for loss or damage caused by the conduct. It is not an automatic payment for making a complaint.Law: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PO(4)(d)

Yes. Among the possible orders is requiring the respondent to employ or re-employ the applicant. The remedy depends on the court’s decision and the case.Law: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PO(4)(c)

No. La definición legal comprende la pérdida total o parcial de funciones corporales o mentales y otras situaciones expresamente enumeradas. No debe limitarse la evaluación a lo visible.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definición de disability, (a)

Pueden estarlo si la situación concreta encuadra en la definición legal. La palabra neurodivergencia no determina por sí sola el resultado ni habilita a RR. HH. a realizar un diagnóstico.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definición de disability, (f)

Sí. La definición incluye una discapacidad presente y una que existió anteriormente, aunque ya no exista. No corresponde excluir la protección por ese solo motivo.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definición de disability, (h)–(i)

Sí. La definición comprende esa posibilidad, incluida la predisposición genética. Eso no autoriza a excluir candidatos por suposiciones sobre su salud futura.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definición de disability, (j)

La definición también incluye una discapacidad atribuida a la persona. Una decisión perjudicial basada en esa atribución puede quedar alcanzada.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definición de disability, (k)

Sí. La definición incluye conductas que sean síntoma o manifestación de una discapacidad comprendida. Hay que analizar el caso y los ajustes pertinentes, sin presumir que toda conducta tiene ese origen.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), párrafo final de la definición de disability

Sí. La ley extiende su protección a quien tiene una persona asociada con discapacidad. Debe comprobarse la relación comprendida en la definición y el motivo del trato.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 7(1)

Sí. La ley extiende el análisis a tener una persona cuidadora o asistente, un animal de asistencia o una ayuda por discapacidad. Deben verificarse las definiciones y excepciones correspondientes.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 8(1)

No. Una de las vías legales exige entrenamiento para aliviar el efecto de la discapacidad y estándares adecuados de higiene y conducta. También existen vías de acreditación; no se presume que cualquier mascota reúna los requisitos.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 9(2)(c)

Puede ser un equipo, incluido un dispositivo paliativo o terapéutico, que la persona utiliza y que ayuda a aliviar el efecto de su discapacidad. Debe analizarse su función concreta.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 9(3)

Es el trato menos favorable por la discapacidad frente al que recibiría una persona sin esa discapacidad en circunstancias que no sean materialmente diferentes. El análisis requiere comparar situaciones pertinentes.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 5(1)

No necesariamente. La definición también contempla proponer un trato menos favorable. Deben verificarse los demás elementos legales del caso.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 5(1)

Sí, cuando la falta del ajuste produzca o pueda producir el trato menos favorable que exige la norma. No basta con registrar el pedido: corresponde evaluar sus efectos y la respuesta.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 5(2)(a)–(b)

No. La ley define el ajuste razonable con referencia a la carga injustificable. Deben analizarse las circunstancias y alternativas del caso; el nombre dado al pedido no resuelve por sí solo su procedencia.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 4(1), definición de reasonable adjustment

Sí. Un requisito aparentemente general puede perjudicar a personas con discapacidad si estas no pueden o no llegan a cumplirlo por esa discapacidad. También debe revisarse la defensa de razonabilidad prevista por la ley.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 6(1)(a)–(c)

Sí. La norma contempla que una persona solo pueda cumplir un requisito si se realizan ajustes razonables y que no hacerlos la coloque en desventaja. Conviene evaluar barreras y alternativas antes de excluirla.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 6(2)(b)–(c)

No. La ley contempla una defensa si el requisito o condición es razonable atendiendo a las circunstancias. Esa razonabilidad debe demostrarse, no presumirse.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 6(3)

La persona que exige o propone exigir su cumplimiento. RR. HH. debería conservar las razones y evidencias del requisito y de las alternativas evaluadas.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 6(4)

No. Puede ser uno de varios motivos, aunque no sea el dominante ni sustancial. Agregar otra explicación no elimina automáticamente el análisis de discriminación.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 10

No. Debe analizarse junto con las circunstancias del caso, incluida la situación financiera de quien debe realizarlo. No alcanza con afirmar que el ajuste tiene un costo.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 11(1)(c)

Sí. La disponibilidad de asistencia financiera y de otro tipo es un factor legal. La existencia o inexistencia de ayuda debe verificarse para el caso, sin prometer un subsidio concreto.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 11(1)(d)

Quien la invoca. Es conveniente documentar las circunstancias, los costos, beneficios y apoyos considerados, en lugar de limitarse a una negativa general.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 11(2)

No. También comprende la organización de la selección y la determinación de a quién ofrecer empleo, dentro del ámbito y excepciones de la ley.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 15(1)(a)–(b)

Sí. La prohibición también alcanza las condiciones en que se ofrece el empleo. Debe revisarse la oferta y no solamente la decisión de contratar.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 15(1)(c)

La ley prohíbe negar o limitar oportunidades de promoción por discapacidad. La evaluación debe atender al puesto concreto y a las excepciones y ajustes que correspondan.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 15(2)(b)

Sí. La capacitación es uno de los beneficios laborales expresamente contemplados. Deben revisarse las condiciones de acceso y las barreras que impidan participar.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 15(2)(b)

Sí. La prohibición incluye despedir por discapacidad y otros perjuicios laborales. Deben analizarse los motivos reales y las excepciones legales, sin concluir que cualquier desvinculación de una persona con discapacidad sea automáticamente ilícita.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 15(2)(c)–(d)

La ley prohíbe al principal discriminar al contract worker por discapacidad, tanto en las condiciones permitidas como al impedir que trabaje o continúe trabajando. Debe comprobarse esa relación jurídica.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 17(a)–(b)

Sí. No pueden discriminar por discapacidad al negar sus servicios, fijar sus condiciones o prestarlos. La obligación no se limita a la empresa que contratará.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 21(1)(a)–(c)

Sí. Comprende organismos que conceden o renuevan autorizaciones o calificaciones profesionales. Deben verificarse las exigencias inherentes y las excepciones aplicables.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 19(a)

La norma prohíbe esa discriminación en las organizaciones comprendidas en su definición, tanto al aceptar miembros como en las condiciones de ingreso.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 20(1)(a)–(b)

La excepción exige que la persona no pueda cumplir los requisitos inherentes del trabajo aun realizando los ajustes razonables pertinentes. Conviene identificar las funciones esenciales y evaluar apoyos antes de decidir.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 21A(1)(b)

Sí. La ley exige tomar en cuenta su formación, calificaciones y experiencia relevantes para el trabajo concreto. No corresponde reemplazar esa evaluación por un estereotipo.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 21A(2)(a)

Sí. La norma incluye su desempeño laboral cuando ya trabaja para quien toma la decisión. Debe evaluarse junto con los demás factores pertinentes.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 21A(2)(b)

No. Tiene límites expresos para determinadas oportunidades y perjuicios. Debe distinguirse decidir quién accede a un ascenso o traslado de negar otros beneficios protegidos.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 21A(4)(a)

Sí. El artículo prohíbe acosar a su empleado en relación con la discapacidad. Corresponde registrar y revisar los hechos concretos, no normalizarlos como parte del trabajo.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 35(1)

Sí. Comprende el acoso a una persona empleada por el mismo empleador, en relación con su discapacidad. No se limita a una relación jerárquica.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 35(2)

Sí. El artículo también protege a quienes buscan empleo frente al acoso relacionado con su discapacidad por las personas comprendidas en la norma.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 35(3)

La ley prohíbe la victimización, que comprende perjuicios o amenazas vinculados con haber presentado o proponerse presentar una denuncia bajo las normas indicadas. Deben revisarse también las represalias indirectas.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 58A(1)–(2)(a)

Sí. La protección contra victimización comprende haber comparecido o proponerse comparecer como testigo en los procedimientos indicados.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 58A(2)(e)

No de manera indiscriminada. La norma restringe solicitudes vinculadas con discapacidad y contempla excepciones por finalidades no discriminatorias, como evaluar requisitos inherentes o ajustes. Hay que justificar la necesidad y el uso del dato.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 30(2)–(3), ejemplo

Sí. La ley también contempla los medios de acceso a lugares a los que el público o un sector del público puede ingresar o usar. Deben verificarse las características del lugar, las normas técnicas y excepciones aplicables.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 23(c)

No. Permite su funcionamiento concurrente cuando corresponda. Antes de reclamar o diseñar una política debe identificarse también la norma local y las reglas sobre procedimientos simultáneos.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 13(3)

Sí. La norma alcanza a quien causa, ordena, induce, ayuda o permite el acto ilícito comprendido. La responsabilidad no se limita necesariamente a quien ejecuta la decisión final.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 122

Sí, por conductas dentro del alcance de su autoridad real o aparente, con la defensa prevista para quien acredite precauciones razonables y diligencia debida. Una política escrita por sí sola no acredita que se haya aplicado.Norma: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 123(2)

En el sistema nacional y si cumple los requisitos de la sección, sí. Puede solicitar cambios relacionados con su discapacidad. Es una vía que debe distinguirse del deber de ajustes de la ley antidiscriminatoria.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 65(1), (1A)(c)

Puede hacerlo si es carer en el sentido legal y cumple los demás requisitos. No cualquier vínculo familiar acredita por sí solo esa condición.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 65(1A)(b)

Al menos doce meses de servicio continuo inmediatamente anteriores al pedido. Ese requisito es de esta vía legal y no se traslada automáticamente a los ajustes antidiscriminatorios.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 65(2)(a)

Sí, si reúne las condiciones de regularidad durante el período legal y una expectativa razonable de continuidad regular y sistemática. No todo vínculo casual cumple esos requisitos.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 65(2)(b)

Por escrito, detallando el cambio solicitado y sus razones. Conviene conservar una copia con fecha de recepción.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 65(3)

Veintiún días, mediante respuesta escrita, cuando se trata de una solicitud comprendida en la sección 65. No debe confundirse ese plazo con el análisis de otros pedidos de ajustes.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 65A(1)

Sí. Si surge de la discusión y ambas partes lo acuerdan, la respuesta debe identificar ese cambio. Conviene precisar su implementación.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 65A(2)(b)

La negativa está condicionada a discutirlo, intentar genuinamente un acuerdo, considerar las consecuencias para el trabajador y fundarse en razones empresariales razonables. No basta con una negativa automática.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 65A(3)

Debe identificar los motivos empresariales concretos y explicar cómo se aplican al pedido. También debe incluir los demás elementos y alternativas que exige la sección.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 65A(6)(b)

La vía prevé intentar primero resolver la disputa mediante conversaciones en el lugar de trabajo. Si no se resuelve, una parte puede llevarla a la Fair Work Commission, bajo los requisitos de la sección.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 65B(2)–(3)

Sí. Esta parte de la ley federal no pretende excluir derechos estatales o territoriales más beneficiosos. Debe identificarse la norma que realmente se aplica al vínculo.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 66

Para los empleados comprendidos que no son casuals, la ley establece diez días por año de servicio. Se acumulan según las horas ordinarias y pasan de un año a otro; debe calcularse la equivalencia del horario concreto.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 96(1)–(2)

No por la sola condición. La licencia personal se utiliza cuando la persona no está apta para trabajar debido a una enfermedad o lesión personal, cumpliendo los requisitos de aviso y evidencia.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 97(a)

La ley prevé dos días por cada ocasión admisible de enfermedad, lesión o emergencia inesperada de un familiar inmediato o miembro del hogar. No puede utilizarse en un período en que corresponda la licencia paga de cuidado.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 102 y 103(3)

Sí. El aviso debe darse tan pronto sea practicable e indicar la duración o duración esperada. Si el empleador lo requiere, debe aportarse evidencia que satisfaga a una persona razonable.Norma: Fair Work Act 2009, 107(1)–(3)

Mediante una denuncia escrita que alegue actos, omisiones o prácticas de discriminación ilícita. Debe individualizarse lo ocurrido; no basta mencionar un desacuerdo laboral sin explicar el vínculo con la discriminación.Norma: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46P(1)

Los detalles de los actos, omisiones o prácticas alegadas, tan completos como sea practicable. Es útil ordenar los hechos y conservar la documentación que los respalde.Norma: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46P(1B)

Sí. La ley permite que una persona o sindicato presente una denuncia por una o más personas afectadas. Debe comprobarse la representación y el alcance del caso.Norma: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46P(2)(c)

Debe tomar medidas razonables para ofrecer asistencia apropiada cuando se dan las condiciones de esa sección. La solicitud de ayuda puede explicar la barrera para formular o escribir el reclamo.Norma: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46P(4)

No. Si no se termina antes por las causas legales, la vía prevé investigar e intentar conciliar. La terminación y el eventual acceso judicial tienen requisitos propios.Norma: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PF(1)(c)

No es una prohibición automática en esa cláusula, pero constituye una causa por la que la Presidencia puede terminar el reclamo. Conviene revisar los plazos sin demorar la presentación.Norma: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PH(1)(b)

Sí. La Presidencia debe notificar por escrito a los denunciantes la terminación y sus razones. Esa notificación importa para evaluar la siguiente vía.Norma: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PH(2)

La norma establece sesenta días desde la emisión de la notificación, o el tiempo adicional que admita el tribunal. Deben verificarse también el permiso judicial y las excepciones legales que correspondan.Norma: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PO(2) y (3A)

Si determina discriminación ilícita, puede ordenar indemnización por pérdidas o daños causados por la conducta. No es un pago automático por presentar una denuncia.Norma: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PO(4)(d)

Sí. Entre las órdenes posibles está exigir que el demandado emplee o vuelva a emplear a la persona solicitante. La medida depende de la decisión del tribunal y del caso.Norma: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, 46PO(4)(c)