Resources: Blogs

“Because I said so …”

Blogs
|

The causal link between adverse action and workplace rights

The general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) aim to protect employees from adverse action (including dismissal) because of a proscribed reason. Proscribed reasons include the existence of a workplace right and the exercise (or failure to exercise) a workplace right.

The general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) aim to protect employees from adverse action (including dismissal) because of a proscribed reason. Proscribed reasons include the existence of a workplace right and the exercise (or failure to exercise) a workplace right.

By way of example, an employee has a right to take leave, engage in industrial activity and make workplace complaints.

However, the existence of a workplace right (or exercise thereof) will not automatically preclude an employer from taking adverse action if the “substantive and operative” reason for taking the adverse action is not the workplace right.

In Ibarra Campoverde v Regional Health Care Group Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 1502, the Federal Court has recently found that an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee was not based on him having made a workplace complaint, even though the complaint prompted the investigation which resulted in the termination of his employment.

 

Facts

The employee, a picker at the employer’s warehouse, was involved in a workplace incident in which the employee alleged he was sworn at and physically assaulted by a colleague after the employee tripped over a rubbish bin.

The employee advised his manager that he intended to lodge a complaint about the incident and it was alleged that his manager threatened to terminate his employment if he did so.

The employee then attempted to meet with the company’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) (who was also their HR manager) to report the incident. Even though the COO was on annual leave, the employee was invited to give a statement in the meantime. Upon being notified of the incident, the COO determined to stand the employee down with pay until an investigation could be completed upon her return.

Upon completion of the investigation, the employee was dismissed on the grounds of misconduct.

The employer provided evidence in the proceedings that the investigation found the employee:

  • Was the aggressor in the workplace incident;
  • Was aggressive and intimidating to other staff when attempting to report the incident; and
  • Had a poor performance history.

The employer submitted that the decision to dismiss the employee was based on the findings of misconduct in the investigation and not that the employee had made the workplace complaint which prompted the investigation.

 

Decision

Judge Cameron agreed with the employer’s submissions and dismissed the case.

His Honour made clear that the mere fact that adverse action is taken against an employee who engages in conduct that is:

  • in breach of the employer’s policies; and
  • involves the exercise of a workplace right,

is an “insufficient” connection to establish that such adverse action was in contravention of the FW Act.

His Honour found the evidence supported the conclusion that the reason for the employee’s dismissal was his poor behaviour and the decision-maker (i.e. the COO) was not influenced by any other factor or person in coming to that decision.

 

Lessons for employers

This is a reminder of the importance of the word “because” in section 340(1)(a) of the FW Act.

Just as employees are entitled to exercise (or to not exercise) workplace rights, employers are entitled, if it is so warranted, to investigate incidents relating to employee conduct and engage in disciplinary action.

When the exercise of a workplace right is entangled with the conduct which was the reason for disciplinary action, the courts have shown a willingness to untangle those threads and separate the workplace right from the conduct.

Thus, the fact that such conduct might involve the exercise of an employee’s workplace right is not determinative of a contravention of the general protections provisions. The central question revolves around the state of mind of the relevant decision-maker and is a question of fact to be determined in the particular circumstances of a matter.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

Court temporarily reinstates employee pending adverse action claim

BRB

The probation period is commonly used by employers to assess the suitability of an employee for ongoing employment. One of the reasons that the probation period is of benefit to employers is because, when aligned with the minimum employment period set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), it allows an employer to end the employment relationship before an employee becomes entitled to protection from unfair dismissal.

Read more...

“Bad Blood” - Adverse Action and Unfair Dismissal

In the wake of challenging economic circumstances and increasing episodes of poor employee behaviour, employers may be required to make difficult, but necessary, decisions in relation to its workforce.

Read more...

Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.

Read more...

FWC finds employer’s assumptions about employee’s capacity rendered dismissal unfair

You need to chill out

If an employer is questioning the capacity of an ill or injured worker’s ability to fulfil the inherent requirements of their position, they may consider testing the legitimacy of an employee’s prognoses and medical advice. In these circumstances, the employer should be aware of their obligations to the employee and the potential consequences of failing to satisfy them.

Read more...

FWC finds dismissal harsh and unreasonable given employer’s communication blunder of policy changes

Sliding into your DM’s

It is best practice for employers to ensure that their policies and procedures are properly communicated and understood by employees, especially in circumstances where the policy relates to important topics such as the health and safety of employees.

Read more...

Poor redundancy process results in successful workers compensation claim

Coffee catastrophe

There are a number of legal obligations and risks that an employer must consider when implementing any form of disciplinary or dismissal process. These are not limited to claims made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) but can also include the risk of claims made under anti-discrimination or workers compensation legislation.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.

Subscribe

* indicates required