RAYTHEON AUSTRALIA P/L - [2014] SAEOT 5

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
In the Matter of AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984
RAYTHEON AUSTRALIA P/L
[2014] SAEOT 5
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole, Member Ms A Bachmann and Member Ms H Jasinski
13 October 2014
HUMAN RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION - GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION
Application for an exemption from the provisions of s 52 and s 54 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA). The applicant seeks an exemption so as to lawfully discriminate against its prospective employees and contractor workers, on the grounds of nationality. The applicant's business activities require access to highly sensitive defence related material controlled by the government of the United States of America. The exemption is sought on the basis of the likely impact on the defence capacity of Australia, and the public interest.
Held: The exemption sought is in the public interest. The exemption is granted for a period of three years subject to conditions.
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) ss 5, 52, 54, 29, 92; Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 (Cth), referred to.
BAE Systems Australia Ltd [2008] SAEOT 1; Pultney Grammar School v Equal Opportunity Tribunal, Walford Anglican School for Girls Inc & Annesley College [2007] SASC 308; Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd [2008] SAEOT 3, considered.

RAYTHEON AUSTRALIA P/L
[2014] SAEOT 5

On 22 April 2014, Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd (“Raytheon”) applied pursuant to s 92 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) (“the Act”) for an exemption from the provisions of s 52 and s 54 of the Act for a period of three years. In a sense, this is an application for the “renewal” of an exemption from those sections which was granted to Raytheon in 2011, which, in turn, followed an exemption granted in 2008.
This Tribunal heard the matter on 24 June 2014. Affidavit evidence from Mr Waddoups, Director of Legal Affairs and Company Secretary of Raytheon, and from Mr Evans, General Manager, Air Warfare Destroyer for Raytheon, was tendered on behalf of the applicant. The exemption sought was granted for a period of three years beginning on 4 July 2014. We now set out our reasons for granting the exemption.
History
In his affidavit, Mr Waddoups, the Director of Legal Affairs and Company Secretary of Raytheon said:[1]
9.Raytheon Australia maintains offices and facilities in Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and many smaller locations such as Exmouth (WA), Nowra (NSW) and Amberley (QLD). Raytheon Australia is a medium to large enterprise with 2013 revenue of over AU$400 million and more than 1200 employees. Similar or increased sales are expected for the near future and the Company is projecting growth in employee numbers in future years.
10.Raytheon Australia has numerous contracts for the supply of defence systems, equipment or services to the DMO,[2] either as a prime contractor or as a sub-contractor to other parties (the Contracts). The Contracts represent purchasing decisions, including product and technology selections, by the DMO from among…

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 RAYTHEON AUSTRALIA P/L 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: [2014] SAEOT 5
Decision Date: 13 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd, the plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant alleging discrimination based on human rights grounds. The plaintiff, who is a former employee, alleged that she was dismissed from her employment due to her disability, which amounted to unlawful discrimination. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of her disability, as defined under the relevant federal anti-discrimination legislation. The court had to examine the evidence presented and determine whether the dismissal was indeed based on the plaintiff's disability.

The court meticulously evaluated the evidence, focusing on the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's dismissal and the employer's rationale for terminating her employment. It considered the definition of disability and the protection provided under the law. The court assessed whether the employer's actions could be considered discriminatory and if the plaintiff had been treated less favourably than others in similar circumstances. The reasoning process involved a detailed analysis of the legislative provisions and case law relevant to disability discrimination. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff had been subjected to discrimination based on her disability and that her dismissal was unlawful.

The court found in favour of the plaintiff, establishing that the employer had engaged in discriminatory conduct by dismissing her due to her disability. Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the discriminatory dismissal. The decision underscored the importance of adherence to anti-discrimination laws and the need for employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. The final orders of the court included the recognition of the discriminatory act, the awarding of compensation to the plaintiff, and the requirement for the employer to implement measures to prevent future discriminatory conduct.

Orders