Australian company Law

Due to the temperament of the transitory issues that have been faced by the workers from their shift from casino Limited to caterers Limited, a solution regarding their salary and salary can only be solved through the application of the come with law.Australian corporate and fellowship constitute a divergent legislation delinquent to the nature of the commercial activities in Australia. Perhaps, the amendment of the commonwealth workplace Act in Australia has led to diversified laws regarding the employer and his employee. Due to these amendments, employees are therefore faced with unalike legal requirement in regard to their work.The lodge law is obligated for the regulation of the corporate governance and the general administration of the company. Within the great deal are diametrical stakeholders who are responsible in performing different duties.This groups work together cordially and in harmony with another to pick up the smooth running of the corporation. In the corp oration, different parties should perform different duties. In their performance of the duties, these parties are head by different rights which ensure no conflict within the company. (Ferran, 1999)Among the parties to the company are the employees. Like other employees in a company the employees of the Casino Limited whom have been divided with nearly becoming subordinate employees of the caterers confine, are entitled to specific rights in their actualization of them as been workers in the company. To them they are entitled to good working surroundings and a remuneration which best improves their lives as workers.To the case between these employees and the Casino Limited, the employees had entered in to a contractual relationship with the management of the company in regard to their ruminations. In this contract, they were to be paid wages and salaries that were to be in excess of other workers in similar resorts in Australia.This comes only to an apprehension after a long d ispute in relation to it with its employees. However, the like contract is breached by the management after it expands to form another auxiliary company which is however wholly owned by the Casino Ltd. (Ferran, 1999)By statutes of the company law, any subsidiary company wholly owned by the grow company with all its meshings diverted to the baffle company is in itself regulated in the similar manner as the other subsidiary. Since caterers Ltd move under this category, it has no other authority except to undertake its line of merchandise in regard to the business law regulating the Casino ltd.In the company law, there are some basic concepts that denote whether two or more subsidiary companies should be operated under the selfsame(prenominal) business law. Firstly, the nature of directorship, where a subsidiary company with directions appointed from the broader company. Company law states that, such(prenominal) a company is in a close regard to its mother company.Secondly, th e nature of profit shares, in which, if subsidiary company pulls all its profit turnovers to the mother company, it implies equality in management and therefore should be guided by the same company laws as its mother company. Equality in operations where the subsidiary company operates the same business undertaking as the other. Either, the nature of management, where two or more companies are under the same management, they are subject to same company law.Implied here is that, Casino and Caterers limited implied one and the same organization whose operations were to be as per the regulations of the same company law. The structure of the corporate governance in these two companies was the same. (Cheffins, 1997)