Dina v J-Corp Pty Ltd

Case [2019] FCCA 2861


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DINA v J-CORP PTY LTD [2019] FCCA 2861
Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Alleged dismissal from employment in contravention of a general protection.

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Part 3-1, ss. 338, 340, 341, 342, 360, 361, 570,

789FC

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.75

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s.15AB

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.21.02

Cases cited:

Automotive, Food, Metal, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 3) [2013] FCA 525; (2013) 216 FCR 70
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay [2012] HCA 32; (2012) 248 CLR 500; (2012) 86 ALJR 1044; (2012) 220 IR 445; (2012) 290 ALR 647
Barnes v Hatch Associates Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 3375
Celand v Skycity Adelaide Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 222; (2017) 256 FCR 306; (2017) 274 IR 420
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41; (2014) 253 CLR 243; (2014) 88 ALJR 980; (2014) 245 IR 354; (2014) 314 ALR 1; (2014) 66 AILR 102-268
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union & Others v Clarke [2008] FCAFC 143; (2008) 170 FCR 574; (2008) 176 IR 245
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 76; (2015) 231 FCR 150; (2015) 250 IR 422
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v McCorkell Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 446; (2013) 232 IR 290; (2013) 65 AILR 101-911
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 697; (2012) 64 AILR 101-659
Cross v Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd T/As Harbour City Ferries & Ors (No 2) [2017] FCCA 1713
De Blasio v Melba Support Services lnc [2014] FCCA 1893
Devonshire v Magellan Powertronics Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] FMCA 207; (2013) 231 IR 198; (2013) 275 FLR 273; (2013) 65 AILR 101-892
Evans v Trilab Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 2464; (2014) 66 AILR 102-287
General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 136 CLR 676; (1976) 51 ALJR 235; (1976) 12 ALR 605
Harrison v In Control  Pty Ltd [2013] FMCA 149; (2013) IR 452; (2013) 273 FLR 190
Henry v Leighton Admin Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] FCCA 1923
Hill v Compass Ten Pty Ltd (2012) 205 FCR 94
Jeavons v Entram Pty Ltd (2016) FCCA 3457
Maritime Union of Australia v Geraldton Port Authority [1999] FCA 899; (1999) 93 FCR 34; (1999) 94 IR 244; (1999) 165 ALR 67
Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 908; (2013) 238 IR 307
National Tertiary Education Union v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [2013] FCA 451
Nixon v Cal Dive International (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 2614
Ramos v Good Samaritan Industries [2013] FCA 30
Ratnayake v Greenwood Manor…

Continue reading Dina v J-Corp Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dina v J-Corp Pty Ltd [2019] FCCA 2861
Case
[2019] FCCA 2861
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Dina v J-Corp Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Mr Dina, alleged that he was dismissed from his employment by J-Corp Pty Ltd in contravention of the general protections provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia before Judge Lucev.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Dina's dismissal was substantially motivated by a prohibited reason under the general protections provisions. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if J-Corp Pty Ltd had dismissed Mr Dina because he had exercised a workplace right, namely by making a complaint about his working conditions.

Judge Lucev found that the evidence did not establish that Mr Dina's dismissal was substantially motivated by his complaint. The Court considered the reasons for dismissal provided by J-Corp Pty Ltd and concluded that these reasons were genuine and not a pretext for a dismissal based on the exercise of a workplace right. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation relevant to the general protections provisions, focusing on the need to prove a causal link between the exercise of a workplace right and the dismissal.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed Mr Dina's application, finding that he had failed to establish that his dismissal was in contravention of the general protections provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.