Myers v Arenco Holdings Pty Ltd

The applicant, Ms Myers, brought proceedings against her employer, Arenco Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as OM Yoga Studios), and two of its directors, Mr Pym and Ms Wu. Ms Myers alleged that the respondents contravened section 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by taking adverse action against her for exercising a workplace right. The court was required to determine whether the employer's actions constituted a breach of this provision.

The central legal issue was whether the employer's conduct, specifically the circumstances surrounding a meeting where Ms Myers' future teaching schedule and administrative duties were discussed, amounted to adverse action taken because she had raised concerns about her working conditions. Ms Myers contended that her expressed concerns about her roster and the timing of certain classes were workplace rights, and that the subsequent discussions and proposed changes to her role were adverse actions taken in response to her raising these issues. The employer, conversely, argued that any changes were for legitimate operational reasons and not in retaliation for Ms Myers exercising her rights.

Egan J considered the employer's onus to demonstrate that the adverse action was not taken for a proscribed reason. The court referenced the principle that mere declarations of an innocent reason for adverse action may not satisfy this onus if contrary inferences are available. Ms Myers' affidavit detailed a meeting where she raised concerns about her demanding roster and the difficulty of teaching early morning classes due to school drop-off times. She also expressed a preference for teaching a certain number of classes and indicated her availability. The employer's representatives then discussed a potential shift in her role, focusing more on teaching and less on administration, with a potential adjustment to her pay rate to maintain her financial position. Crucially, Ms Myers stated that termination, performance issues, or a formal offer of a new contract were not mentioned during this meeting.

The court found that the employer had not satisfied its onus to prove that the adverse action was not taken for a proscribed reason. The timing of the meeting, following Ms Myers' expressed concerns about her roster and working hours, created an inference that the subsequent discussions and proposed changes were a response to her raising these issues. The court determined that compensation and civil penalty orders would be the subject of further submissions.