Resources: Blog

Drive through bottle shop attendant dismissed because of pregnancy

Blog
|

One for my baby, and one more for the road

A bottle shop attendant in Cairns was recently awarded compensation in excess of $39,000 after she was dismissed for being pregnant.

A bottle shop attendant in Cairns was recently awarded compensation in excess of $39,000 after she was dismissed for being pregnant (Leutton v Sheralee Hotels Pty Ltd Trading As Imperial Tavern & Ors [2019] FCCA 2471).

The employee was working in the drive through bottle shop of a tavern when she was informed by her doctor that, because of her pregnancy, she should not lift more than 5kg.

Following her visit to her doctor, the employee attended a meeting with the tavern’s bar manager and bottle shop manager. At the meeting, the employee advised the managers of her lifting restrictions and provided them with a medical certificate.

The employee requested “no safe job leave” (an entitlement under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act)). One of the managers responded, “We don’t do paid leave.”

The employee asked whether she would have a job after her parental leave, and the response she received was that they would see if there was a job available then.

The employee also suggested that she could work behind the bar of the tavern (knowing that positions were being advertised) as this would not involve her lifting heavy items as her work in bottle shop required. One of the managers told her that it was a “bad look” for a pregnant woman to work behind the bar.

In short, the managers would not permit the employee to work behind the bar or take “no safe job leave”, and her employment was terminated.

The employer later issued the employee with a separation certificate which stated that the reason for “separation” was, “Due to pregnancy [the employee] is unable to continue with her position as [a] bottle shop attendant.”

The employee commenced proceedings against the employer and the two managers in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

She argued that her employer and the managers had taken adverse action against her because she had exercised or proposed to exercise her right to take unpaid no safe job leave and, had exercised or proposed to exercise her right to be transferred to a safe job during the risk period of her pregnancy.

The employee further claimed that she was discriminated against because of her pregnancy.

Despite the employer and the managers being aware of the proceedings against them, they failed to present any defence to the Court or to appear at all. The Court interpreted their failure to appear as a waiver of their right to be heard.

Accordingly, the Court accepted the unchallenged evidence of the employee and she was awarded compensation for lost wages and lost superannuation as well as compensation for hurt and humiliation. The Court also ordered that the employer and the managers pay a $10,000 penalty for their contraventions of the FW Act, and that the penalty be paid directly to the employee.

Lessons for employers

Pregnant employees have important protections under the FW Act, including protection from adverse action and discrimination.

Specifically, as touched on in this case, pregnant employees are entitled to:

  • return to their jobs after parental leave (this is known as the “return to the work guarantee”);
  • transfer to a safe job (where a safe job is available) if it is inadvisable for the employee to continue in their usual position for a stated period during their pregnancy; and
  • take “no safe job leave” where there is no appropriate safe job available.

Taking adverse action against an employee because they are pregnant or because they exercise one of the workplace rights listed above is a contravention of the FW Act and can result in significant penalties for employers and any other individuals involved, such as managers.

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

Employee fails in bid to have safety-related dismissal found to be unfair

Garbage in, garbage out

A dismissed employee can lodge an unfair dismissal claim alleging that their dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Employees will often claim that the dismissal was all three: harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.

Read more...

Full Bench quashes order to reinstate labour hire employee to host employer

Host with the most

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, where it is found by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, the primary remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) is for the employee to be reinstated to the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.

Read more...

Court fines PCBU $60,000 for failing to re-assess the risks associated with changing site conditions

Set and forget

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have a positive obligation to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others.

Read more...

Employee fails in bid to have safety-related dismissal found to be unfair

Garbage in, garbage out

A dismissed employee can lodge an unfair dismissal claim alleging that their dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Employees will often claim that the dismissal was all three: harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.

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 Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.