Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology

The case of Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology was an appeal against the decision of the primary judge that the university was not liable to the appellant for breach of contract. The appellant was a lecturer employed by the respondent university who was terminated in accordance with procedures specified in an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement on the basis of the type and content of his emails. The appellant commenced proceedings alleging breach of his employment contract and the primary judge dismissed the claim. The appellant argued that the primary judge erred in concluding that the appellant’s evidence of being bullied, harassed and discriminated against by the respondent was irrelevant to the breaches and causation he alleged. The appellant also argued that it was necessary and appropriate for the primary judge to have determined his allegations of bullying, harassment and discrimination. The respondent argued that the primary judge’s findings were correct and that the appellant’s evidence provided an inadequate basis for deciding that the conduct of senior staff amounted to bullying, harassment or discrimination. The court held that the primary judge was correct in finding that the appellant’s evidence provided a wholly inadequate basis for deciding that the conduct of senior staff amounted to bullying, harassment or discrimination. The court found that the breaches alleged were breaches of procedures which, on the appellant’s case, the respondent was contractually obliged to follow. The appellant’s treatment in the months and years prior to the alleged breaches was relevant only by way of background. Whether the appellant was bullied or not had no bearing upon, or relevance to, the question whether the respondent had properly followed clause 44 of the EBA or whether it was contractually obliged to follow the Grievance Policy and failed to do so. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.