Maxutova v Nunn Media Pty Ltd

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia heard a dispute between Ilmira Maxutova (the applicant) and Nunn Media Pty Ltd (the respondent). The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated due to making workplace complaints and taking personal leave, in breach of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). She also claimed the respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct during her recruitment, contravening the Australian Consumer Law, and failed to provide a final payslip. The applicant sought substantial damages and reimbursement for various expenses.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the respondent terminated the applicant's employment because she made complaints within the meaning of s.341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act, or due to illness or injury in breach of s.340(1) of the same Act. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under ss.18 and 31 of the Australian Consumer Law, and if there was a breach of s.536 of the Fair Work Act for failing to provide a final payslip.

Judge McNab found that the applicant's claims under the Australian Consumer Law were not made out, as the representations made during recruitment were either too general, aspirational, or not established as untrue. The court also found that the respondent had not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. Regarding the termination of employment, the court accepted the evidence that the respondent's decision-maker had decided to terminate the applicant's employment by 29 June 2016, prior to her taking personal leave. The court concluded that the sole reason for termination was the applicant's unsatisfactory performance and inability to perform her role, and that the respondent had discharged its onus of establishing that the reason for termination was not a prohibited reason. The court also found that the applicant's complaints about a colleague's competency and her workload did not rise to a level that constituted a protected workplace right for the purposes of adverse action, and that the evidence did not support a finding that these complaints were a reason for her termination. Finally, the court accepted the evidence that the applicant received her final payslip.

Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application. The orders also stipulated a timeframe for any application for costs and the filing of supporting material and responses.