Austin v Honeywell Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, Judge Riley considered a dispute between Fiona Austin (the applicant) and Honeywell Ltd (the respondent). The applicant alleged that she had been subjected to adverse action in contravention of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) because she had exercised a workplace right by refusing to provide consent for the storage of her passport details and by refusing to release Honeywell from liability for any damages arising from the collection and use of her personal information. The applicant contended that the *Privacy Act 1988* (Cth) constituted a workplace law for the purposes of the adverse action provisions.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's refusal to consent to the collection and storage of her personal information, and her refusal to release Honeywell from liability, constituted the exercise of a workplace right under section 340(1) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). This required the Court to determine whether the *Privacy Act 1988* (Cth) is a "workplace law" as defined by the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).

Judge Riley found that the *Privacy Act 1988* (Cth) is not a workplace law for the purposes of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The Court reasoned that the definition of "workplace law" in the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) is specific and does not encompass all legislation that may have an impact on the workplace. The *Privacy Act 1988* (Cth) is a general law concerning privacy and does not specifically regulate the relationship between employers and employees in the manner contemplated by the definition of workplace law. Therefore, the applicant's actions, while related to her employment, did not constitute the exercise of a workplace right under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).

The Court ordered that the applicant's application be dismissed.