Hagos v Volvo Group Australia Pty Limited (No.2)

In *Hagos v Volvo Group Australia Pty Limited (No.2)*, the Federal Court of Australia considered a dispute between Mr Hagos and Volvo Group Australia Pty Limited concerning alleged contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). Mr Hagos claimed that Volvo Group Australia had engaged in adverse action against him by terminating his employment, alleging this action was taken because of his complaints about workplace safety.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Volvo Group Australia had taken adverse action against Mr Hagos for a prohibited reason, specifically because he had exercised a workplace right by making complaints about workplace safety. The Court was required to determine if the termination of Mr Hagos's employment was causally linked to these safety complaints.

Judge Jarrett found that Mr Hagos had established a prima facie case that he had exercised a workplace right and that Volvo Group Australia had taken adverse action by terminating his employment. However, the Court ultimately concluded that Mr Hagos had not discharged the onus of proving that the reason for the termination was his exercise of a workplace right. The Court reasoned that while the timing of the termination was proximate to the safety complaints, Volvo Group Australia had presented a credible and sufficient alternative reason for the dismissal, namely Mr Hagos's poor performance and conduct, which had been documented and addressed prior to the safety complaints. The Court applied the principles of adverse action under the *Fair Work Act*, requiring the applicant to prove the prohibited reason was a cause of the adverse action, and that the respondent could then seek to rebut this by proving the action was taken for a permitted reason.

The Court ordered that judgment be entered for the respondent, Volvo Group Australia Pty Limited.