Rangi and Action Workforce Pty Ltd and Ors - [2019] FCCA 3370

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RANGI & ACTION WORKFORCE PTY LTD & ORS

[2019] FCCA 3370

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair work action – breach of general protections – whether the applicant has sought relief against the appropriate respondents – whether the named respondents took unlawful action, or threatened to take adverse action, against the applicant – whether the applicant suffered bullying, harassment or discrimination in contravention of the Fair Work Act – relevant employer of the applicant not named as a respondent to the proceedings – no adverse action established – no contraventions of the Fair Work Act established – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 ss.341, 342, 343, 345, 351, 550

Cases cited:

Amcor Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2005) 222 CLR 241
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hall [2018] FCAFC 83
Cigarette and Gift Warehouse Pty Ltd v Whelan [2019] FCAFC 16
Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v ADCO Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 1463
Environmental Group Ltd v Bowd [2019] FCA 951
Shea v TRUenergy Services Pty Ltd (No 6) [2014] FCA 271
Unsworth v Tristar Steering and Suspension Australia Ltd [2008] FCA 1224
Workpac v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131

Applicant:

PREM LATA RANGI

First Respondent:

ACTION WORKFORCE PTY LTD

Second Respondent

ADVANCE MIX PTY LTD

Third Respondent

PAUL RIXON

File Number:

MLG 629 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Blake

Hearing date:

14 & 15 October 2019

Date of Last Submission:

15 October 2019

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

21 November 2019

REPRESENTATION

Advocate for the Applicant:

Mr Rangi

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Rangi Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr Denton

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Mark Diamond & Associates

ORDERS

The Application filed on 13 March 2018 be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 629 of 2018

PREM LATA RANGI

Applicant

And

ACTION WORKFORCE PTY LTD

First Respondent

And

ADVANCE MIX PTY LTD

Second Respondent

And

PAUL RIXON

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The Applicant in this matter is Ms Prem Lata Rangi. She was and remains an employee of the Second Respondent. The Applicant advances various claims against the Respondents. These claims include the following:
a)that the Respondents took unlawful adverse action against her, or threatened to take adverse action against her;
b)that the Respondents engaged in action against her or threatened to do so with intent to coerce her to change her employment conditions;
c)that the Respondents knowingly and recklessly made a false representation to her about her workplace rights;
d)that she suffered bullying, harassment and discrimination at her workplace at the hands of the Respondents.
For the reasons that follow, I have decided to dismiss the claims made by the Applicant.

Background

The Applicant performs work at a mushroom farm in Mernda, Victoria. The farm is owned and operated by Costa Logistics Pty Ltd (‘Costa’).
The Applicant has worked at the farm since 2006. Up until May 2013, she was employed by Oneforce Group Australia Pty Ltd (‘Oneforce

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rangi and Action Workforce Pty Ltd and Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] FCCA 3370
Decision Date: 21 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Rangi v Action Workforce Pty Ltd and Ors*, heard before Judge Blake in the Fair Work Commission, the applicant brought proceedings alleging breaches of the general protections provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The dispute centred on claims of bullying, harassment, and discrimination, with the applicant asserting that the named respondents had taken or threatened to take unlawful adverse action against them. A key factual element was that the applicant's relevant employer was not named as a respondent in the proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the applicant had sought relief against the appropriate respondents, whether any of the named respondents had engaged in conduct constituting unlawful adverse action or threatened such action, and whether these actions contravened the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) in relation to bullying, harassment, or discrimination. The Commission was required to determine if the applicant's claims were legally sustainable given the parties involved and the nature of the alleged conduct.

Judge Blake found that the applicant had failed to establish that adverse action had been taken against them by the named respondents. Crucially, the absence of the applicant's actual employer as a party to the proceedings meant that the Commission could not find a contravention of the general protections provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) in relation to the alleged bullying, harassment, or discrimination. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Orders