Selvarasa v Wenco Pty Ltd

Selvarasa (the applicant) brought proceedings against Wenco Pty Ltd (the respondent) alleging a breach of general protections under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The applicant contended that the respondent had taken adverse action against him by terminating his employment because of his absence from work due to injury. The matter was heard by Judge Kendall in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had taken adverse action against the applicant for a prohibited reason, specifically, his absence from work due to injury. This required the Court to determine the reason for the respondent's decision to terminate the applicant's employment, bearing in mind the reverse onus provision applicable to general protections claims, which requires the employer to prove that the adverse action was not taken for a prohibited reason.

Judge Kendall found that the applicant had not established that his absence due to injury was the reason, or a substantial reason, for the termination of his employment. The Court considered the evidence provided by the decision-maker, which indicated that the termination was based on the applicant's failure to provide a medical certificate and his inability to perform the inherent requirements of his role. The Court concluded that the respondent had discharged the onus of proving that the adverse action was not taken for a prohibited reason.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.