Hull v Hertel Modern Pty Ltd

Hull (the applicant) brought proceedings against Hertel Modern Pty Ltd (the respondent) in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, alleging that the respondent had taken adverse action against her by making her redundant, in contravention of section 340 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The applicant contended that her redundancy was a consequence of her having exercised a workplace right.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had taken adverse action against the applicant by reason of her exercising a workplace right, specifically whether the applicant's redundancy was a result of her having exercised such a right. This required the Court to consider the operation of the rebuttable presumption established by section 361 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), which presumes that a respondent has taken adverse action for a prohibited reason unless the respondent proves otherwise.

Judge Smith found that the applicant had not established that her redundancy was a result of her exercising a workplace right. The Court determined that the respondent had discharged the onus placed upon it by section 361 of the Act, demonstrating that the redundancy was due to genuine operational reasons and not in retaliation for the applicant's exercise of a workplace right. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no breach of section 340 of the Act by the respondent.

The application was dismissed.