Resources: Blog

Court finds that adverse action was taken against employee due to his silica disease diagnosis

Blog
|

Stone cold

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) prohibits employers from dismissing an employee from their employment because they have exercised a workplace right or because of a discriminatory reason, such as physical or mental disability.

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) prohibits employers from dismissing an employee from their employment because they have exercised a workplace right or because of a discriminatory reason, such as physical or mental disability.

In Ruttley v Willis Brothers Installation (Qld) Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 430, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (the Court) was satisfied that a stone benchtop manufacturer and installer (the Employer) took adverse action against an employee by dismissing him from his employment.

The employee had commenced employment with the Employer in 1997 initially as an apprentice and was most recently employed as a Production Manager. In January 2016, the employee became a director of the Employer. The employee also held a Queensland Building and Construction Commission Licence (QBCC) stonemasonry licence as nominee supervisor for the Employer.

In November 2018, the employee was diagnosed with lymph node silicosis and lodged a workers compensation claim which was accepted in January 2019.

In accordance with a direction from Work Health and Safety Queensland, employees who were diagnosed with silicosis were to refrain from working in workplaces with silica dust. The employee claimed that despite this direction, another director of the Employer, Mr Willis had bullied him and forced him to work on the factory floor. The relationship between the employee and Mr Willis deteriorated culminating in an incident on 14 January 2020 between the pair. The employee subsequently left the workplace and did not return to work. The employee was certified as unfit for work claiming it was due to stress caused by Mr Willis.

The employer subsequently engaged in the following conduct:

  • Requested that the employee surrender his other motor vehicle and advised the employee that his licence allowance would not be paid while he was on sick leave.
  • Reduced the employee’s wage, disconnected his mobile phone and cancelled his fuel card.  
  • Ceased paying the employee his weekly wage and claimed that the employee had exhausted all his leave entitlements.
  • Refused to provide the employee are conciliation of his leave entitlements in response to his request.
  • Passed a resolution removing the employee as a director of the company from 1 May 2020.

On 11 May 2020, the employee’s employment was terminated with the letter detailing that the termination was because he had taken excessive leave.

The employee alleged that the Employer had dismissed him from his employment because:

  • He exercised workplace rights to make a workers compensation claim and to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to the payment of his leave entitlements; and
  • He suffered from a physical disability or lymph node silicosis.

The Court accepted the evidence of the employee over the evidence of the Employer, in particular finding that Mr Willis was not a credible witness.

The Court rejected that the Employer’s stated reason for the dismissal of the employee was the real reason for the termination of his employment.

Rather, the Court found that, when Mr Willis became aware of the employee’s diagnosis, he formed a view that the employee would not be able to continue as a Production Manager due to his physical disability and went about trying to exit the employee from the business. This included attempting to become the QBCC nominee supervisor himself and later in December 2019 appointing his brother as a director, who became the QBCC nominee supervisor. The Court found that it was at this point, the Employer no longer required the employee in the business.

Accordingly, the Court was satisfied that the Employer had terminated the employee’s employment because of his physical disability. In particular, the Court noted that the Employer failed to provide any evidence that the employee was unable to perform the inherent requirements of a Production Manager.

The Court was also satisfied that the employee was dismissed because he exercised workplace rights to make a workers compensation claim and seek information about his accrued leave entitlements.

The Employer was ordered to pay to the employee compensation in the total amount of $162,631, which included $142,631 for past economic loss and $20,000 for distress, hurt and humiliation.

The Court invited the parties to provide submissions as to the pecuniary penalty to be imposed for contraventions of the FW Act.

Lessons for Employers

The FW Act provides protections for employees against action taken by employers for a prohibited reason. In addition to being ordered to pay damages for past and future economic loss, a breach of the adverse action provisions attract a pecuniary penalty, currently a maximum of $13,200 for individuals and $66,000 for companies for each contravention.

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

Application to vary redundancy pay dismissed

No points for the assist

The entitlement to redundancy pay under the National Employment Standards of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is one which is intended to minimise the adverse impact of a redundancy on affected employees, such as loss of job security and the potential difficulties associated with obtaining new employment in the open market.

Read more...

Making offers of casual conversion

No vacancy

Division 4A of Part 2-2 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which came into operation on 27 March 2021, imposes an obligation on employers of casual employees to make offers of conversion to permanent employment in certain circumstances.

Read more...

Court finds HR manager accessorily liable for adverse action claim

Supreme failure

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) contains provisions which make it possible for individuals to be found accessorily liable for their involvement in a contravention of a workplace law. In particular, section 550 of the FW Act provides that a person “involved in” a contravention will be taken to have contravened that provision themselves.

Read more...

Post-employment restraint found go beyond what is enforceable

There’s nothing holdin’ me back

It is not common for employment contracts to contain restraint of trade clauses which seek to prevent departing employees from joining competitors or using or disclosing their former employer’s confidential information.

Read more...

Commission finds employee was dismissed despite “heat of the moment” resignation

Talk before the walk

One of the key elements of a procedurally fair disciplinary process is for the employee in question to be notified of the seriousness of the process (including the potential disciplinary penalties) and to be provided with an opportunity to respond to any allegations before a decision as to disciplinary action has been made.

Read more...

Application to vary redundancy pay dismissed

No points for the assist

The entitlement to redundancy pay under the National Employment Standards of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is one which is intended to minimise the adverse impact of a redundancy on affected employees, such as loss of job security and the potential difficulties associated with obtaining new employment in the open market.

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.