Colin Fenwick
University of Melbourne
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Colin Fenwick.
Economic and Labour Relations Review | 2006
Colin Fenwick
The Work Choices package of legislative reforms has significantly altered both the institutions and the instruments of the federal regulatory architecture for setting minimum working conditions. This paper surveys the reduced role of awards and of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, before considering the function and content of the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard and Australian Pay and Classification Scales, as well as the role of the newly created Australian Fair Pay Commission. It argues that the Work Choices reforms have shifted power over the setting of minimum working conditions to the government, which will set many conditions directly, and to employers, who will be entitled to require employees to be party to workplace agreements that displace very many of the minimum working conditions that are otherwise purportedly guaranteed. These shifts have opened up the space for significant reductions in minimum working conditions, as well as for falls in real wages for those not able to benefit from wage bargaining.
Economic and Labour Relations Review | 2010
Chris Dent; Colin Fenwick; Kirsten Newitt
The allocation of any benefit that arises from worker-generated innovation is complicated by the importance of three separate areas of law — employment law, intellectual property law and equity — and the distinction between those types of innovation that attract intellectual property rights and those types that do not (the latter being a category that is often referred to as ‘know-how’). The purpose of this article is to engage with the legal scholarship on the principles that are relevant to innovation. To date, the discussion has focused on two distinct approaches — what may be termed the economic and the fairness perspectives. The former may be seen as a justification for the current regime, while the latter has focused on the perceived needs of workers (in large part in opposition to the employers). Our argument is that these two approaches are both incomplete. In an attempt to get closer to a workable framework for the effective allocation of benefits, we offer a third approach; one that is based on the practices that are central to the employer-worker relationship.
Archive | 2008
Colin Fenwick; John Howe; Shelley D. Marshall; Ingrid Landau
South African Law Journal | 2005
Colin Fenwick
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations | 2004
Colin Fenwick; Evance Kalula
Archive | 2007
Colin Fenwick; Evance Kalula; Ingrid Landau
Human Rights Quarterly | 2005
Colin Fenwick
Archive | 2014
Deirdre McCann; Sangheon Lee; Colin Fenwick; John Howe; Malte Luebker
Hart Publishing | 2010
Colin Fenwick; Tonia A Novitz
Archive | 2008
Evance Kalula; Ada Ordor; Colin Fenwick