Resources: Blog

The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

Blog
|

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason.

One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.

This means that employers and other persons who are alleged to have taken adverse action bear the onus of establishing or disproving that the action was for an unlawful reason. The purpose of this rebuttable presumption is that it would otherwise be difficult for a person to prove that adverse action was taken against them for a proscribed reason.

The practical application of the reverse onus of proof means that evidence of the decision-maker will be needed in order to demonstrate that the action was not taken for an unlawful reason and to confirm what was in the decision-maker’s mind when making the decision.

In Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1407 the Federal Court of Australia (FCA), awarded an employee $5,228,410.00 in compensation for breaches of the general protections provisions of the FW Act and a breach of contract by the employer and its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

The employee had been employed from 2006 and held the position of Victoria Regional Manager until his summary dismissal in May 2016. The employee alleged that he was dismissed for a prohibited reason, which included because he exercised a workplace right to make a complaint that he was bullied. The employer and the CEO denied that the employee was dismissed because he had exercised a workplace right.

The CEO submitted that he was the sole decision-maker and that he terminated the employee’s employment for reasons relating to his performance and conduct, specifically that:

  • Victorian licences fees were not growing;
  • Concerns about the employee’s team which had been described as a “team in crisis”; and
  • The employee had not been able to work well with two managers in a two-year period.

The FCA found that it was the CEO who made the decision to terminate the employee’s employment. Having found this, the FCA noted that it was required to assess the “state of mind” of the CEO. 

The FCA did not accept the CEO’s evidence about his state of mind at the time he made the decision. Rather, the FCA was satisfied that the CEO was aware of the employee’s bullying complaints when he resolved to terminate the employee’s employment. Given this conclusion, the FCA did not accept that the employee was dismissed for the reasons claimed by the CEO.

The FCA found that the employee’s exercise of his workplace rights was a “substantial and operative factor” in the CEO’s reasons for taking adverse action against the employee.

Accordingly, the FCA held that the employer had not displaced the presumption and was satisfied that the employer took adverse action against the employee in contravention of the general protections provisions because he had exercised a workplace right and made seven complaints about bullying. The FCA also found that the CEO was accessorily liable for the contraventions.

The FCA ordered that penalties and compensation be paid to the employee as follows:

  • $40,000 as a pecuniary penalty to be paid by the employer;
  • $7,000 as a pecuniary penalty to be paid by the CEO;
  • $756,410 as compensation for forgone share options as a result of the summary dismissal;
  • $2,825,000 in future economic loss;
  • $10,000 as general damages; and
  • $1,590,0000 for breach of contract.

Lessons for employers

This case serves to remind employers about the presumption in adverse action matters under the FW Act. The onus is on the employer to provide evidence from a decision-maker that the decision to take adverse action against an employee was not because of a prohibited reason such as the exercise of a workplace right.

Significant penalties and compensation can arise if an employer fails to displace the reverse onus of proof and is found to have contravened the FW Act.

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

Casual Terms Award Review 2021

NEWS UPDATE

In March 2021, the casual employment amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) introduced a new statutory definition of “casual employee” and an entitlement to casual conversion as one of the National Employment Standards (NES).

Read more...

WHS rights and adverse action

A slippery slope

Under the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee (such as dismissing them from employment) because they have a workplace right or because they have exercised or chosen not to exercise that right.

Read more...

Employee dismissed for exercising workplace right to take leave

Diamonds are not a girl’s best friend

The general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) provide protections against adverse action which is taken for a prohibited reason. Prohibited reasons for taking adverse action include situations where a person has a workplace right and exercises (or proposes to exercise) that right. Workplace rights include the right to utilise leave entitlements under the FW Act.

Read more...

Commission critical of employer’s entirely email-based disciplinary process

Words flying high

Communication between the employer and employees is essential for a good working relationship. Poor communication in the disciplinary process may lead to a deficiency in the process which renders the dismissal unfair.

Read more...

Dismissals for temporary illnesses under the FW Act

Red Light, Green Light

Within the general protections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), there is a protection afforded to employees who are temporarily absent from work because of an illness or injury.

Read more...

Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

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.