Resources: Blogs

“No one puts baby in a corner”

Blogs
|

FWC finds pregnancy not a valid reason for dismissal

There are a range of laws in Australia that protect people who are pregnant from discrimination and most employers are aware that pregnancy related discrimination in the workplace is unlawful. However, assumptions about the capacity of pregnant employees are often made without proper expert advice and unfortunately we are still seeing employers unlawfully act against the interests of pregnant employees.

There are a range of laws in Australia that protect people who are pregnant from discrimination and most employers are aware that pregnancy related discrimination in the workplace is unlawful. However, assumptions about the capacity of pregnant employees are often made without proper expert advice and unfortunately we are still seeing employers unlawfully act against the interests of pregnant employees.

In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) considered whether the pregnancy of an employee was a valid reason for dismissal from a job that the employer did not consider appropriate for a pregnant person.

In Morgan v Heritage Motels and Restaurants [2016] FWC 4842 a pregnant motel manager was dismissed by her employer over the phone after she called him to provide an update about her progress and return to work following sick leave.

In the lead up to her dismissal, the employee had suffered from nausea, muscle aches and had collapsed at work after her back muscles seized up. She subsequently took sick leave to recover and called her employer to discuss her return to work date. During that phone call the employer told the employee, “This isn’t a job for a pregnant person. I would hate for you to have a miscarriage here so I think you should finish up.”

The employee protested and said that she had several months of work left before she intended to take maternity leave to which the employer responded that he wanted her to finish up. The employee asked if he was firing her because she was pregnant, to which he answered “Yep.”

In reaching a conclusion about whether a dismissal is unfair, the FWC must be satisfied that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, including an assessment of whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the employee’s conduct or capacity. A valid reason must be one that is sound, defensible and well-founded, and not capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced.

Unsurprisingly, the FWC found that the employee’s pregnancy was not a valid reason for her dismissal and that there were significant procedural deficiencies in the way the employee was dismissed.

The FWC held that the employee was unfairly dismissed and it awarded her compensation.

This case demonstrates that some employers continue to make assumptions about the work capacity of pregnant employees without proper advice. Employers should always avoid treating pregnant employees less favourable to non-pregnant employees, and in particular should not dismiss an employee because they are pregnant.

 

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

Employer unlawfully discriminated against employee with breastfeeding responsibilities

It’s a tent-s situation

There are a number of personal attributes that are protected by Australia’s federal and state anti-discrimination laws, such as a person’s race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibilities, breastfeeding, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

Read more...

Failure to warn employee renders dismissal unfair

Template lesson

Many businesses, and in particular small businesses employers subscribe to human resources information systems which offer access to template letters and policies to provide a ready-made solution or to manage human resources administration.

Read more...

Employer’s withdrawal of role constituted dismissal from employment

Late withdrawal

For most employers, casual employment is favoured because of the flexibility it provides – employees are employed as required and have no guarantee of ongoing employment. This flexibility however does not mean that casual employees are not protected from adverse action.

Read more...

First Intractable bargaining order made by the Full Bench

How did it end?

Enterprise agreement making under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires bargaining representatives to bargain in good faith. Under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission was provided with new powers to arbitrate and issue a workplace determination to resolve intractable disputes about terms and conditions of proposed enterprise agreement in circumstances where there are no reasonable prospects of the parties reaching an agreement.

Read more...

Federal Court finds employee was not demoted due to his exercise of workplace rights

The final decision

Employees are protected from adverse action because they have exercised, or propose to exercise, the workplace right to make a “complaint” or “inquiry” in relation to their employment within the meaning of section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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...

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.