澳洲格里菲斯大学论文代写：法律追索权
这已反映在[杰姆斯Hardie公司V澳大利亚证券和投资委员会[ 2010 ] [ 2008 ] nswca 332 ]，认为审公司声称没有未来的责任可以作为一个案例陈述自“未来债权分离和充分的资金”和“没有未来的责任–没有规定要求“ 有被提出作为一个参数。【澳大利亚证券和投资委员会诉麦克唐纳德（NO 11）[ 2009 ] nswsc 287 ]进一步认为“…信息涉及不完整的建议或协商”，因此，参与实体必须保持在相同的管辖权。
因此，APA的法律追索权是根据《公司法2011》、《公平工作法》第2009号和《最高法院法》1970，向公司通报其对雇员的合同义务。这些都是以下的含义：
该公司尚未确定其破产或破产，而且在继续采用交替雇佣形式进行裁员之前，绝对没有寻求全面的成员批准。
交替雇用的形式是对雇员的偏见，因为工资明显减少（20%），尽管减少了应有的权利。
公司有歧视员工支付他们在利润较少的工资可代替，它现在被用来提供相对较高的工资和增量效益的新任命的员工
虽然第二家公司不承认雇员与第一家公司的雇佣关系，但第一个公司实际上是第二个公司的合伙人，因为它从第二个公司获得了可观的分红。
因此，第二家公司在第一家公司的直接控制下，在法律上要求平等对待所有这些雇员。
澳洲格里菲斯大学论文代写：法律追索权
This has been reflected in [James Hardie Industries NV v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2010] NSWCA 332], which held that the instance of a company claiming no future liability can be treated as a case of misrepresentation since “future claims separated and fully funded” and “no future liability – no provision required” had been presented as an argument. [Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 11) [2009] NSWSC 287] further held that “…the information concerns an incomplete proposal or negotiation” and hence both the participating entities must remain under the same jurisdiction.
Thus, the legal recourse for APA is to inform the company of their contractual obligations to its employees under the Corporations Act 2011, Fair Work Act 2009 and the [Supreme Court Act 1970]. These are of the following implications:
The company hadn’t established that it was insolvent or bankrupt, and had definitely not sought comprehensive member approval before going ahead with a redundancy package in the form of alternate employment
The form of alternate employment is to the prejudice of the employee since the pay is significantly less (by 20%), notwithstanding reduced degree of entitlements
The company had discriminated against its employees by paying them lesser wages in lieu of appropriable profits, which are now being used to dispense relatively higher salaries and incremental benefits to the newly appointed employees
Though the second company does not recognize the employment of the employees with the first company, the first is in fact an associate of the second by virtue of its drawing significant dividend in the form of profits from the second company
The second company is thus under direct control of the first company, which is legally required to treat all of these employees on an equal footing.
