Rahman v Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Australian Taxation Office

In the Federal Court of Australia, Judge Driver considered a dispute between Mr. Rahman and the Commonwealth of Australia, as represented by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Mr. Rahman alleged that he was subjected to adverse action, including disciplinary action and being passed over for promotion, due to racial discrimination. He also pleaded implied terms of his employment contract, specifically that the ATO would treat him with courtesy and consideration, not subject him to undue harassment, and that he could repose trust and confidence in the ATO not to act to his detriment without good cause.

The court was required to determine whether the ATO's actions constituted adverse action under the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act, and whether the ATO breached implied terms of Mr. Rahman's contract of employment. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether Mr. Rahman was prevented from leaving work early on 28 February 2011, and if any such refusal was a result of racial discrimination or a breach of contractual terms.

Judge Driver found that Mr. Rahman had not discharged his onus of proof. The evidence, including email exchanges and affidavits, indicated that Mr. Rahman was not prevented from leaving work early on 28 February 2011. Rather, he was offered the option of applying for flex leave, and his decision not to leave was his own. The court noted that while a moratorium on leave existed to discourage annual leave, it did not amount to a policy preventing employees from taking short periods of leave without prior approval. Furthermore, the court found that the ATO did not refuse Mr. Rahman leave on that day. Consequently, the court determined that the factual basis for Mr. Rahman's allegations regarding being prevented from leaving work and the subsequent breaches of implied contractual terms was not established.