Crossing v Anglicare NSW South, NSW West & Act

The applicant, Mr Richard Crossing, sought relief from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia against Anglicare NSW South, Anglicare NSW West and Act (collectively referred to as Anglicare), alleging that they had taken adverse actions against him in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The crux of the case was whether the actions taken by Anglicare were indeed adverse actions and if they were taken for any unlawful reason, such as discrimination or retaliation for exercising workplace rights. The court had to determine whether Mr Crossing's employment termination and other actions were adverse actions as defined under the Fair Work Act, and if so, whether they were taken for any unlawful reason.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including affidavits, witness testimonies, and documentary evidence, to assess the nature of the adverse actions and the reasons behind them. The court found that Mr Crossing was employed under the condition that he would be "imminently qualified" for the position, a condition he did not meet. The court also found that even if the actions taken by Anglicare were adverse actions, they were not taken for any unlawful reason. Mr Crossing's termination was due to his failure to meet the job requirements, specifically the qualifications required by the ASIC Class Order [CO 03/1063] and the Funding Agreement. The court did not find any evidence that Mr Crossing exercised workplace rights, such as the right to complain or the right to be a member of an industrial association, or that he was discriminated against due to his mental health issues.

The court concluded that Mr Crossing had not established any adverse actions taken by Anglicare, or if they were, that they were not taken for any unlawful reason. Therefore, the application was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the evidence that Mr Crossing was not qualified for the position he was hired for, and that the actions taken by Anglicare were legitimate and not retaliatory or discriminatory. The court found no merit in Mr Crossing's claims and dismissed his application in its entirety.