Richards v Le Cordon Bleu Australia Pty Ltd; and Richards v Le Cordon Bleu

David Richards (the applicant) brought proceedings against Le Cordon Bleu Australia Pty Ltd and Le Cordon Bleu (the respondents) in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The first proceeding concerned the termination of Mr Richards’ employment, with claims that the dismissal was for prohibited reasons under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), specifically relating to his exercise of a workplace right to make a complaint or enquiry, and because he was temporarily absent from work due to illness or injury. The second proceeding alleged that the respondents made false and misleading representations during Mr Richards’ recruitment, inducing him to enter into an employment contract and causing him loss and damage, contrary to the *Competition and Consumer Act 1974* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether Mr Richards' dismissal constituted adverse action under the *Fair Work Act*, either because it was taken in response to his complaints and enquiries about his employment or because of his temporary absence due to illness. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct during the recruitment process, and if so, whether Mr Richards suffered any loss or damage as a result. The court also considered the timing of the dismissal decision and the provision of a medical certificate, and the credibility of the witnesses involved in these determinations.

In relation to the *Fair Work Act* claim, the court found that while Mr Richards had made complaints and enquiries, and had been temporarily absent due to illness, these factors were not the reason for his dismissal. The court accepted the evidence of Mr Cointreau, the decision-maker, that the dismissal was triggered by Mr Richards' failure to attend a scheduled dinner meeting without prior notification. The court found that the respondents had not discharged the onus of proof to demonstrate that the dismissal was not for a prohibited reason, but ultimately concluded that the dismissal was not causally connected to Mr Richards' exercise of workplace rights or his illness. Regarding the *Competition and Consumer Act* claim, the court found that the representations made during recruitment were not misleading, and even if they were, Mr Richards had not suffered any loss or damage.

Consequently, the court dismissed both applications.