Desouza v Secom Australia Pty Limited

In the matter of *Desouza v Secom Australia Pty Limited*, heard before Judge Nicholls in the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant, Mr Desouza, sought to challenge the lawfulness of his dismissal from employment by the respondent, Secom Australia Pty Limited. The core of the dispute concerned whether Mr Desouza's termination constituted an unlawful adverse action under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) due to his alleged engagement in protected industrial activity.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Secom Australia Pty Limited had taken adverse action against Mr Desouza, within the meaning of section 342(1) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), by dismissing him. This required the Court to determine whether the dismissal was because Mr Desouza had made a complaint or inquiry to his employer about his employment conditions, or had exercised a workplace right, specifically his right to be represented by a union official during a disciplinary meeting.

Judge Nicholls considered the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the timing of the dismissal in relation to Mr Desouza's union involvement and the reasons articulated by Secom Australia Pty Limited for the termination. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning adverse action, which require an applicant to demonstrate that a prohibited reason was a cause, or one of the causes, for the employer's action. The Court found that the evidence did not establish that the dismissal was motivated by Mr Desouza's protected industrial activities, but rather by legitimate reasons related to his conduct and performance.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr Desouza's application.