Bayens v Transport Workers Union of Australia Western Australian Branch
Case
•
[2019] FCCA 1284
•17 May 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bayens v Transport Workers Union of Australia Western Australian Branch [2019] FCCA 1284
[2019] FCCA 1284
17 May 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Federal Circuit Court of Australia heard a general protections claim brought by Cornelius Bayens against the Transport Workers Union of Australia Western Australian Branch (TWU). Mr Bayens alleged that the TWU contravened section 352 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) by dismissing him from his employment because he was temporarily absent from work due to illness or injury. The TWU admitted to dismissing Mr Bayens and that he was temporarily absent due to illness or injury at the time of dismissal, but denied that this absence was the reason for his termination.
The central legal issue before the Court was to determine the true reason for Mr Bayens' dismissal. Specifically, the Court was required to ascertain whether the TWU's decision to terminate Mr Bayens' employment was influenced by his temporary absence due to injury, which would constitute a contravention of section 352 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).
The Court applied section 361 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), which creates a presumptive onus on the employer to prove that the dismissal was not for a prohibited reason when the employee alleges such a reason and the employer admits to the adverse action and the existence of the prohibited reason. The Court found that while Mr Bayens' colleagues and supervisors generally held a positive view of his work performance, and that the TWU's decision-maker, Mr Dawson, had expressed views about Mr Bayens' absence that suggested it was a factor in the dismissal, Mr Dawson's evidence regarding his reasons for termination was generally preferred. The Court noted inconsistencies in Mr Bayens' own evidence, particularly regarding the circumstances of his injury and his denial of receiving phone calls from Mr Dawson on the day of his injury, which were contradicted by phone records. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the TWU had discharged the onus of proving that the dismissal was not for the prohibited reason.
The application brought by Mr Bayens was dismissed.
The central legal issue before the Court was to determine the true reason for Mr Bayens' dismissal. Specifically, the Court was required to ascertain whether the TWU's decision to terminate Mr Bayens' employment was influenced by his temporary absence due to injury, which would constitute a contravention of section 352 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).
The Court applied section 361 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), which creates a presumptive onus on the employer to prove that the dismissal was not for a prohibited reason when the employee alleges such a reason and the employer admits to the adverse action and the existence of the prohibited reason. The Court found that while Mr Bayens' colleagues and supervisors generally held a positive view of his work performance, and that the TWU's decision-maker, Mr Dawson, had expressed views about Mr Bayens' absence that suggested it was a factor in the dismissal, Mr Dawson's evidence regarding his reasons for termination was generally preferred. The Court noted inconsistencies in Mr Bayens' own evidence, particularly regarding the circumstances of his injury and his denial of receiving phone calls from Mr Dawson on the day of his injury, which were contradicted by phone records. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the TWU had discharged the onus of proving that the dismissal was not for the prohibited reason.
The application brought by Mr Bayens was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0