Legal Research
Cases
Mikulic v Ecolab Pty Ltd

Mikulic v Ecolab Pty Ltd

Case [2017] FCCA 146 1 February 2017

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Employment Law

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MIKULIC v ECOLAB PTY LTD

[2017] FCCA 146

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Adverse action – protected workplace rights – disability – operation of reverse onus of proof.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – WORDS & PHRASES – “Complaint”.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Interaction of Fair Work Act 2009 and Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009, ss.340, 341, 342, 351, 360, 361, 539, 545

Evidence Act 1995, ss.97, 102
Work Health and Safety Act 2011
Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Cases cited:
Davids Distribution Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers (1999) 91 FCR 463
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd (1999) 140 IR 131
Rojas v Esselte Australia Pty Ltd (No.2) (2008) 177 IR 306
Shea v TRUenergy Services Pty Ltd (No.6) (2014) 242 IR 1
Milardovic v Vemco Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] FCA 19
Henry v Leighton Admin Services Pty Ltd (2015) 299 FLR 342
Harrison v In Control Pty Ltd (2013) 273 FLR 190
Dowling v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (2008) 172 FCR 96
Hodkinson v Commonwealth (2011) 248 FLR 409
RailPro Services Pty Ltd v Flavel (2015) 242 FCR 424
Cicciarelli v Qantas Airways Ltd [2012] FCA 56
Tsilibakis v Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 740
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical & Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500
Klein v Metropolitan Fire & Emergency Services Board (2012) 208 FCR 178
Construction, Forestry,Mining & Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 243

Applicant:

IVONA KURAN MIKULIC

Respondent:

ECOLAB PTY LTD

File Number:

SYG 2484 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Cameron

Hearing dates:

28 July, 29 July, 24 August, 5 November and 6 November 2015

Date of Last Submission:

6 November 2015

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

1 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms E. Raper

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Baker & McKenzie

ORDERS

The application be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2484 of 2014

IVONA KURAN MIKULIC

Applicant

And

ECOLAB PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. [1]

ALLEGATIONS..................................................................................................... [2]

Alleged Facts
Workplace injury......................................................................................... [3]
Bullying........................................................................................................ [5]
Termination.................................................................................................. [9]
Alleged contraventions.................................................................................. [11]

RESPONSE......................................................................................................... [14]

RELEVANT LEGISLATION.............................................................................. [15]

Penalties and compensation.......................................................................... [19]

APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE............................................................................... [20]

Ivona Mikulic
First bullying complaint........................................................................... [25]
Warning letter............................................................................................ [29]
2011/2012 bullying.................................................................................. [32]
Workplace injuries.................................................................................... [36]
1 April 2014 meeting and return to work on 3 June 2014.................... [40]
Second bullying complaint and investigation......................................... [44]
Termination of employment..................................................................... [52]
Frank Mikulic................................................................................................. [56]
Complaints................................................................................................. [57]
Independent investigation......................................................................... [59]
Termination meeting................................................................................. [60]

RESPONDENTS’ EVIDENCE.......................................................................... [61]

Lisa Atherton.................................................................................................. [62]
Mrs Mikulic’s interview process............................................................. [63]
Performance issues – March to June 2010............................................ [67]
First bullying complaint – June 2010..................................................... [73]
Leave periods............................................................................................ [75]
First workers’ compensation claim......................................................... [77]
Events of April 2014................................................................................. [79]
External investigation............................................................................... [93]
Mrs Mikulic’s return to work in June 2014............................................ [94]
Generally................................................................................................... [97]
Smanatha Fraser........................................................................................... [100]
Early performance issues – March to May 2010................................ [102]
Mrs Mikulic’s…

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 Mikulic v Ecolab Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Mikulic v Ecolab Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 146
Case: [2017] FCCA 146
Decision Date: 1 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr. Mikulic, brought proceedings against his employer, Ecolab Pty Ltd, in the Federal Court of Australia alleging adverse action was taken against him in contravention of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The dispute concerned Mr. Mikulic's claim that his employer took adverse action by terminating his employment because he had a disability and had exercised a workplace right by making a complaint about his disability.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether Mr. Mikulic had established a prima facie case of adverse action under section 340C of the *Fair Work Act*, and if so, whether Ecolab Pty Ltd had discharged the reverse onus of proof under section 361 of the Act by demonstrating that it had a valid reason for the dismissal, unrelated to Mr. Mikulic's protected attributes or workplace rights. The Court was also required to consider the interaction between the *Fair Work Act* and the *Disability Discrimination Act 1992* (Cth) in the context of adverse action claims.

Judge Cameron found that Mr. Mikulic had established a prima facie case of adverse action. The Court reasoned that the employer's stated reasons for dismissal, namely poor performance and a failure to meet key performance indicators, were not substantiated by sufficient evidence and appeared to be a pretext for the actual reason, which was related to Mr. Mikulic's disability. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the *Fair Work Act*, emphasizing that the employer bears the onus of proving that the prohibited reason was not a reason for the adverse action. The Court concluded that Ecolab Pty Ltd had failed to discharge this onus.

The Court ordered that Ecolab Pty Ltd contravened section 340C of the *Fair Work Act* and that Mr. Mikulic was entitled to relief. The matter was adjourned to enable the parties to make submissions on the appropriate form of relief, including compensation.

Orders