Talk:Ambit claim

Australian?
A brief search of the web and online law dictionaries seems to indicate that this is an largely Australian term, and may be more of a 'political' term than a 'legal' one. Elde 16:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's also nothing like the colloquial use of the term, which means something like "scope" - eg "within the ambit of the legislation". As it stands, with only the negotiation-related meaning, this is a bad article because it's confusing. Loganberry (Talk) 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In Australia the term is "Ambit log of claims" and it was very popular in the 1970s though less so now. It has legal standing as a way to bypass negotiating with employers by making settlement of the claim impossible for a State or state Tribunal as the union must "really want what it demands" to be classed as a genuine claim. The Supreme court ruled that as it is not a genuine claim "in the eyes of the person in the street", an ambit claim comes under the Australian Indusrial Relations Commission (AIRC) as the AIRC does not apply the "person in the street" test to determine if a claim is genuine, a loophole deliberately left open. The AIRC makes wage rulings for Federal awards which in turn flow down to state awards and the workers. To qualify as an ambit claim it normally complies with some or all of the following conditions, 1) the union has no intention of obtaining the claims, 2) the claim can not possibly be accepted either now or in the foreseeable future and 3) the main purpose of the claim is to create a dispute which gives jurisdiction to the AIRC. An example of a common ambit claim is the union presenting a "log of claims" demanding a 1,000% pay rise and a 2 day working week phased in over the next 10 years. Why this rediculous claim is made is threefold, that it cant be genuine (ie: handled at state level) so must go to the AIRC. The AIRC on the other hand can only make an award that falls under what was claimed (ie: had the union asked for a $20 pay rise and the AIRC found that a $25 rise was justified it can only award $20), this is called the "doctrine of ambit". Lastly that it can cost employers millions in legal fees for every "dispute" the union lodges, by lodging an ambit claim the "dispute" is effectively open ended and does not need to be lodged again until the new claims exceed the original claim, saving employers millions every year. Legally this topic is very complex lol. Wayne (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

unsourced and biased entry
The example about family law written underneath was both biased and badly written, I have removed it.Master z0b (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)