Australian company Law

Due to the nature 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 remuneration can only be solved through the application of the company law.

Australian corporate and company constitute a divergent legislation due 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 different legal requirement in regard to their work.

The company law is responsible for the regulation of the corporate governance and the general administration of the company.  Within the corporation are different stakeholders who are responsible in performing different duties.

This groups work together cordially and in harmony with another to ensure the smooth running of the corporation.  In the corporation, different parties should perform different duties.  In their performance of the duties, these parties are guided 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 some becoming subordinate employees of the caterers limited, are entitled to specific rights in their recognition of them as been workers in the company.  To them they are entitled to good working environment 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 agreement after a long dispute in relation to it with its employees.  However, the same contract is breached by the management after it expands to form another subsidiary 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 mother company with all its profits diverted to the mother company is in itself regulated in the same manner as the other subsidiary.   Since caterers Ltd falls under this category, it has no other authority except to undertake its business 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 same business law.  Firstly, the nature of directorship, where a subsidiary company with directions appointed from the broader company.  Company law states that, such a company is in a close regard to its mother company.

Secondly, the 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)