Written analysis of Enron Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Written analysis of Enron - Essay Examplelves a recent purpose by Fair Work Australia (FWA) that the termination of the employment of an employee who has served for long in a firm as a result of breach of the golden gum elastic rules was not harsh, unjust and unreasonable.Karratha Gas Plant site conducted activities in potentially hazardous conditions and had a system to mitigate these risks which require permits as part of the palmy normals of the company. Mr. Chadwick was employed for 15 years by Woodside Energy Limited at this plant and was run foring as a maintenance technician. The plant operated with a work permit which formed part of the Golden Safety Rules and Chadwick had been issued with work permit for 7 days to perform hot work which required him to liaise with the chasteness panel before commencing work at any time to ensure that work was done safely.Hours before the expiry of the permit, Mr. Chadwick and another employee arrived at the site before the opening of the permit hut and without consulting the higher management or the panel operator as was the requirement of the permit. They knew the permit hut would open in devil hours time and thus he obtained a further permit later that day. He claimed that he knew the condition of the relevant permit and he had worked on the homogeneous LNG tank on previous occasions and therefore felt that he could meet the conditions without exposing himself or other people to danger. His employment was terminated for breaching the Golden Rule and this action was contested by Chadwick as being harsh, unjust and unreasonable in all contexts.The Deputy President McCarthy held that the Golden Rule had been obtained from standards which had been developed in the oil and gas industry back in 1988 after the Piper Alpha possibility in the North Sea that had led to the death of165 people. This disaster had involved an accumulation of management error and a failure of the permit to work that had not ensured good s ystem of communication. In considering whether the termination was