Talk:CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tamzin (talk · contribs) 23:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

General discussion
Beginning this today or tomorrow. See Talk:Joseph (art model)/GA1 for an example of my GAN approach, and please let me know if anything about that doesn't work for you. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Stopping point. Feel free to comment now or wait till I'm done. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC); 19:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, initial review done. Could you please email me copies of Crockett & Shannon 2022 and Stewart, Murphy & Setter 2022? You can't attach documents with on-wiki email, so you can just email me directly at wikimedian@tamz.in. Beyond that, please see below. Everything's a pretty simple fix; I'll probably have a few more comments/questions once I've looked at the two paywalled sources.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin Thank you so much for this review. I really felt all the feedbacks were fair and actually helpful. Nothing niggly like some, just genuinely making the article better. I have it a damn thorough copyedit too. I have a new Google extension that helps re-order sentences and fix grammar, it's a lifesaver. And heck, it has me using semi-colons...I'll get use to them. Take care Tamzin. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources! Source review done; see below; 3 tiny issues and one medium one, plus the outstanding unsourced half-paragraph. You've resolved all previous concerns in other sections; I do have one tiny MoS queston and a breadth question that came up on the second pass. (And when I say "questions", I do mean questions; they're just things I want to ask about before finalizing.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, and thanks for spending so much time reading them. No worries about questions; I would much rather get it right. These are great points, and I'm still learning, so I appreciate the feedback. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot to @Tamzin ping you. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, all done!  See below for a final thought on Jamsek.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

1: Prose & MoS

 * I think the lede needs maybe 2–3 sentences more about the decision and its impact: why McCourt's contract was taken to be one of employment, and why analysts say the decision won't have the intuitive effect.
 * Done


 * In conjunction with the CFMMEU who acted as his union representative, — either a comma after "CFMMEU" or put "who ... representative" between parentheses or dashes.
 * Done


 * Is there a particular reason to not give judges' full names on first reference?
 * Done


 * — is the period part of the act's name? If not, move outside parens.
 * Done - you have eyes like a hawk!


 * I would wikilink "High Court" on first instance in the body.
 * Agreed and done


 * Seems strange to mention Kiefel as author in the lede but not the body.
 * Agreed and she's out of the lead, no need


 * Isn't it redundant to have the one bit calling it a considerable departure and the other nearby calling it a significant shift?
 * Agreed and changed to The shift in the High Court's treatment of employment relationships meant the approach would not be to treat the construction of employment contracts like any other


 * Don't use "noted" for an opinion/analysis, as it implies objective correctness (regarding Alsop & Lee, and later Stewart and Wilcox).
 * Done


 * people engaged as independent contractors have been done so incorrectly — ?
 * ?? is right. Gone lol


 * Is "6:1" standard in Australian legal contexts? Normally in the U.S. we do "6–1".
 * Done

2a: Ref layout

 * Meagher 2022 and Wilson & Pender 2022 are in the bibliography but not cited? Should they be either removed or moved to "Further reading" or such?
 * Removed - I always write my articles backwards. I write the bibliography before anything else. I did not end up using those articles in the end, so I'll just remove these as they are paywalled and don't add anything.

2b&c: Reliable sources & original reserch
Only a few sources here, so I'll check them all. Using sources present as of Special:Permalink/1154806643. ✅ = verifies. ✅ "verifies, but". = minor verification issue. = nontrivial verification issue.
 * CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting [2022] HCA 1
 * Citation 1 ✅
 * Citation 10 ✅
 * Citation 13 ✅
 * Crockett & Shannon 2022
 * Citation 2 (p. 18)
 * Ref a ✅
 * Ref b ✅
 * Ref c ✅
 * Ref d Does not verify that CFMMEU was McCourt's union rep. (Fixed): 7News cited instead where it is said: "[McCourt] and the CFMMEU then launched proceedings".
 * Ref e ✅
 * Ref f Relevant passage spans pp. 18–19 (fixed)
 * Citation 9 (p. 19) ✅
 * Citation 11 (p. 20) ✅
 * CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting [2019] FCA 1806
 * Ref a ✅
 * Ref b ✅
 * CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting [2020] FCAFC 122 ✅
 * Stewart, Murphy & Setter 2022
 * Citation 5 (p. 58) ✅ Doesn't actually use the phrase "Admnistrative Services Agreement", but that's established earlier by Crockett & Shannon 2022, so that's fine.
 * Citation 8 (p. 59)
 * Ref a Relevant passage is on p. 58
 * Ref b Relevant passage spans pp. 58–59
 * Ref c ✅
 * Bonyhady 2020 ✅
 * Corckett & Shannon 2020 ✅
 * Marin-Guzman 2022:
 * Ref a ✅
 * Ref b ✅
 * Ref c ✅
 * Ref d ✅
 * Ramsey 2022 ✅

Uncited:
 * Last 2 sentences of 2nd graf of § Background; see also question below about the footnote there
 * ✅ Verifies to C&S (2020) p. 104

2d: Copyvio

 * Chief Justice Allsop and Justice Lee questioned the idea of allowing unskilled workers to be paid as contractors at less than the minimum wage employees are entitled may be slightly too close a paraphrasing of The Chief Justice of Australia’s Federal Court has questioned the law that allows unskilled workers to be paid as contractors at less than industry minimum wages . Could you rephrase please?
 * Done and changed to queried paying unskilled workers paid as independent contractors less than the wage to which employees are entitled, but pointed out they couldn't deviate from precedent


 * Otherwise clears Earwig's.
 * No obvious close para from non-paywalled sources.
 * Nor paywalled ones.

3: Breadth & focus

 * I don't understand the footnote about Modern Awards. What is a Modern Award? Do we have an article on it? How is it relevant to the preceding sentence?
 * Removed - I do not think it is relevant anymore. This isn't a textbook so not needed.


 * Is there an article/section that can be linked to, or if not a footnote that can be added, clarifying the meaning of "dismissed" in the context of appeals in Australian law? In many jurisdictions a dismissal would imply something more procedural, which would not be accompanied by a fully-reasoned decision.
 * Changed to rejected. Do you have a better word for "Appeal failed"? Rejected still does not sound write. Dismissed just means "case dismissed" meaning the person bringing it to court lost.
 * I think "rejected" works, assuming that's unambiguous in the Australian legal context. "Declined" could also work. (Here in the U.S. we have the infamous case of the Supreme Court of Texas, which draws a precedentially significan distinction between "rejected" and "declined"; hopefully Australia is saner.)
 * Agreed - and without even reading that case, I am guessing that it's because there is a difference between "rejecting" as in making an actual judgment and saying the appeal has failed on legal grounds, and "declining" as in actually declining to hear the appeal. For declining to hear the appeal, we use "refused leave to appeal", but given that is not comprehensible to a wide audience I try not to use that, or at least explain what "leave to appeal" is


 * Should the parallel and related case of ZG v Jamsek be mentioned?
 * Unsure - I studied the two cases together for an assignment at law school. This article focuses on the issues in Personnel. There is some scope to discuss Jamsek, but I did not really know how to bring that in without getting so technical it would confuse readers. I think at the moment I'd prefer to lead it out because, while the facts and judgment were similar, the cases were otherwise totally unrelated.
 * Given that RS cover them together, I think it would make sense to include 2-4 sentences in § Impact about Jamsek, similar to Nieves v. Bartlett in . But that's not a blocker to GA promotion, since GAs don't need to be comprehensive; just a thought on improving the article. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)