Read v GRP Technology Pty Ltd - [2019] FCCA 2354

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

READ v GRP TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD

[2019] FCCA 2354

Catchwords:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – General protections claim – dismissal from employment – whether contravention of a general protection – whether dismissal from employment by reason of exercise of workplace right.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.12, 340, 341, 342, 360, 361 362, 570

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.75
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.03B, 21.02
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA), s.19

Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v International Aviation Service Assistance Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 333; (2011) 193 FCR 526; (2011) 205 IR 392; (2011) 63 AILR 101-330
Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Australian Western Railroad Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 1954;
Birkett v A F Little Pty Ltd [1962] NSWR 492
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical & Further Education v Barclay & Anor [2012] HCA 32; (2012) 248 CLR 500; (2012) 86 ALJR 1044; (2012) 220 IR 445; (2012) 290 ALR 647; (2012) 64 AILR 101-722
Browne v Dunne (1894) 6 R 67
Celand v Skycity Adelaide Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 222; (2017) 256 FCR 306; (2017) 274 IR 420
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41; (2014) 253 CLR 243; (2014) 88 ALJR 980; (2014) 245 IR 354; (2014) 314 ALR 1; (2014) 66 AILR 102-268
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union & Others v Clarke [2008] FCAFC 143; (2008) 170 FCR 574; (2008) 176 IR 245
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 76; (2015) 231 FCR 150; (2015) 250 IR 422
Cross v Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd T/As Harbour City Ferris & Ors (No 2) [2017] FCCA 1713
Maritime Union of Australia v Geraldton Port Authority [1999] FCA 899; (1999) 93 FCR 34; (1999) 94 IR 244; (1999) 165 ALR 67; (1999) 47 AILR 4-239
Picos v Healthengine Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 1983
Romig v Tabcorb Holdings Ltd [2014] QSC 249
Russell v Institution of Engineers Australia T/A Engineers Australia [2013] FCA 1250
State of Victoria (Office of Public Prosecutions) v Grant [2014] FCAFC 184; (2014) 246 IR 441; (2014) 67 AILR 102-322
Storey v The Monitoring Centre Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] FCCA 3310
Tattsbet Limited v Morrow [2015] FCAFC 62; (2015) 233 FCR 46; (2015) 249 IR 440; (2015) 321 ALR 305

Applicant:

NICHOLAS STEVEN READ

Respondent:

GRP TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD

File Number:

PEG 216 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Antoni Lucev

Hearing date:

7 April 2016

Date of Last Submission:

7 April 2016

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

29 August 2019 (and delivered by by Judge Street pursuant to s.75 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth))

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant:

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms E Hartley

Solicitors for the Respondent:

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 Read v GRP Technology Pty Ltd 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 2354
Decision Date: 29 August 2019 (and delivered by by Judge Street pursuant to s.75 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth))

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Read v GRP Technology Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Ms. Read, brought a claim against her former employer, GRP Technology Pty Ltd, alleging an unlawful dismissal from her employment. The dispute centred on whether Ms. Read's dismissal constituted a contravention of the general protections provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), specifically by reason of her exercising a workplace right.

The primary legal issue before Judge Antoni Lucev was to determine whether Ms. Read's dismissal was causally linked to her exercise of a workplace right. This required the court to assess whether the employer's actions in terminating her employment were motivated by Ms. Read having engaged in conduct that constituted the exercise of a workplace right, as defined by the Act.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties to ascertain the true reason for Ms. Read's dismissal. It applied the principles of statutory interpretation relevant to the general protections provisions, focusing on establishing a causal connection between the exercise of a workplace right and the adverse action taken by the employer. The court's reasoning would have involved an analysis of the employer's stated reasons for dismissal against the applicant's asserted reasons, and the weight to be given to each in light of the statutory test.

Orders