Griffiths v Power Ledger Pty Ltd - [2020] FCCA 2846

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GRIFFITHS v POWER LEDGER PTY LTD

[2020] FCCA 2846

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Adverse Action – where the applicant was employed by a start-up tech company – where the applicant requested equity in the company as part of the terms of his employment – where a handshake agreement was made – where the respondent did not comply with those terms – where the applicant complained – where the role of the applicant was made redundant – where the respondent had the onus of proving the adverse action was not as a result of a prohibited reason – where the respondent failed to discharge onus – declaration made

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.340,341, 342, and 361

Cases cited:

Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500
Griffiths v Power Ledger Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCCA 2684

Applicant:

MARC GRIFFITHS

Respondent:

POWER LEDGER PTY LTD

File Number:

PEG 40 of 2019

Judgment of:

Judge Vasta

Hearing date:

12 and 13 October 2020

Date of Last Submission:

13 October 2020

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

30 October 2020

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms R. Lee

Solicitors for the Respondent:

DLA Piper Australia

THE COURT DECLARES:

That the Respondent, Power Ledger Pty Ltd, contravened s.340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) by making the Applicant redundant after the Applicant made a complaint in relation to his employment.

THE COURT ORDERS:

That the matter be adjourned for hearing as to penalty and compensation at 11.00am (Brisbane Time) on 11 November 2020 via MS Teams.
That the parties file and serve their written submissions in relation to penalty/compensation and the continuation of the non-publication order by no later than 12.00pm (GMT) time on 9 November 2020.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

PEG 40 of 2019

Marc GRIFFITHS

Applicant

And

Power ledger Pty ltd

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The Respondent Company, Power Ledger Pty Ltd, was formed in May 2016. It has been generally described as a “start-up” tech company that utilises technology in the power, water and gas market to provide consumers with individual and therefore, better deals with such utilities.
There were five “co-founders” of the Respondent. These included Dr Jemma Green, who was the “Chairman of the Board”, Mr David Martin, who was the managing director and CEO and Mr John Bulich, who was the technical director.
In early 2017, the company wanted to recruit someone that had technical skills and experience with Blockchain. The Applicant, Marc Griffiths, answered an advertisement and met with the technical director, Mr John Bulich.
There does not seem to be any controversy with the Applicant’s statement that he saw the potential for such a company and wanted “in”; that is, a small piece of equity in the business.
There seems to have been a desire by the Respondent to have the Applicant work for them full-time and that the “sticking point” was that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Griffiths v Power Ledger Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Griffiths v Power Ledger Pty Ltd [2020] FCCA 2846
Case: [2020] FCCA 2846
Decision Date: 30 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Griffiths v Power Ledger Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Mr Griffiths, brought proceedings against the respondent, Power Ledger Pty Ltd, alleging unlawful adverse action under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The dispute concerned Mr Griffiths' dismissal from his employment with Power Ledger.

The central legal issue before Vasta J was whether Power Ledger had taken adverse action against Mr Griffiths for a workplace right, specifically his engagement in protected industrial activity. This required the court to determine if Mr Griffiths' actions constituted a "workplace right" as defined by the *Fair Work Act* and whether his dismissal was causally linked to the exercise of that right.

Vasta J considered the provisions of the *Fair Work Act*, including sections 340, 341, 342, and 361, which govern adverse action and workplace rights. The court analysed the evidence to ascertain whether Power Ledger's motivation for dismissing Mr Griffiths was related to his protected industrial activities. The legal principle applied was that the onus rests on the employer to demonstrate that the adverse action was taken for a reason unrelated to the employee's exercise of a workplace right.

The court found that Power Ledger had failed to discharge this onus and that the adverse action taken against Mr Griffiths was indeed in contravention of the *Fair Work Act*. Consequently, Vasta J made orders in favour of Mr Griffiths.

Orders