Short v Ambulance Victoria

Link copied
Case Copied 34 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Short v Ambulance Victoria [2014] FCA 3

Citation: Short v Ambulance Victoria [2014] FCA 3
Parties: DARREN SHORT v AMBULANCE VICTORIA (ABN 50 373 327 705)
File number: VID 1227 of 2011
Judge: MARSHALL ACJ
Date of judgment: 15 January 2014
Catchwords:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – adverse action – exercise of workplace right – making of complaint or inquiry in relation to employment – discrimination – mental disability – whether the withdrawal of an offer of interview for a higher duties position constitutes “adverse action” – whether adverse action taken for a prohibited reason – respondent’s onus of proof discharged.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – whether breach of an enterprise agreement – failure to refer disciplinary dispute to Fair Work Commission.

CONTRACT – whether conduct of respondent breached implied term of mutual trust and confidence in contract of employment – content of duty.

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 50, 340, 341, 342, 351, 360, 361
Public Administration Act 2004 (Vic)
Cases cited: Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2013) 214 FCR 450
Dates of hearing: 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 October 2013
Date of last submissions: 13 December 2013
Place: Melbourne
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 91
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Wheelahan with Ms E Tueno
Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms K Moorhouse-Perks
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Moore
Solicitor for the Respondent: Lander & Rogers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

VID 1227 of 2011

BETWEEN:

DARREN SHORT
Applicant

AND:

AMBULANCE VICTORIA (ABN 50 373 327 705)
Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL ACJ

DATE OF ORDER:

15 JANUARY 2014

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

VID 1227 of 2011

BETWEEN:

DARREN SHORT
Applicant

AND:

AMBULANCE VICTORIA (ABN 50 373 327 705)
Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL ACJ

DATE:

15 JANUARY 2014

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. On 14 July 2011 the respondent, Ambulance Victoria, terminated the employment of the applicant, Mr Short. At that time, Mr Short was employed as a qualified ambulance paramedic at the Lakes Entrance branch of Ambulance Victoria. Mr Short contends that, in terminating his employment, Ambulance Victoria contravened s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”) by taking adverse action against him because he “vigorously” exercised his workplace rights by making inquiries and/or complaints in relation to his employment. Mr Short also submits that Ambulance Victoria breached s 340(1) of the Act by taking adverse action against him by the following conduct:

    ·its refusal to allow him to perform higher duties on 8 July 2010;

    ·its issuing of a formal warning to him on 9 November 2010; and

    ·its standing down of him on 20 February 2011.

    Mr…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Short v Ambulance Victoria 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] FCA 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Short v Ambulance Victoria, the applicant, Mr Short, argued that his termination by Ambulance Victoria was unlawful under section 340(1) of a relevant Act, contending that it was partly due to his exercise of workplace rights. The dispute was heard and determined by the court, which was tasked with deciding whether the termination was justified and whether there was any connection to Mr Short's workplace rights. The court had to assess the evidence presented by both parties and determine the validity of Mr Short's claims.

The court found that the decision to terminate Mr Short was based solely on his unprovoked and unreasonable personal attack on Mr Standfield, a matter for which he had previously been warned regarding his conduct towards staff in supervisory or managerial roles. The court accepted the testimony of those involved in the decision-making process that this incident was the sole reason for the termination. Counsel for Mr Short's argument that his workplace rights played a part in the decision was rejected by the court, as it found no evidence to support this claim.

In conclusion, the court dismissed Mr Short's application, finding that none of his claims were substantiated. The court upheld the decision of Ambulance Victoria to terminate Mr Short's employment, ruling that it was based on legitimate grounds unrelated to his workplace rights. The court's decision effectively puts an end to Mr Short's legal challenge against his dismissal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Counsel for Mr Short submit that Ambulance Victoria contravened s 340(1) of the Act when it terminated Mr Short’s employment. They contend that the objective evidence supports the conclusion that part of the reason was Mr Short’s persistence in exercising his workplace rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Short was terminated for the reasons contained in the letter of 18 July 2011 which is set out at [86] above. The Court accepts the evidence of those who took part in the decision to the effect that one reason and one reason only actuated them in terminating Mr Short. The reason was his “unprovoked and unreasonable personal attack” on Mr Standfield, in circumstances where he had previously received a warning in respect of his behaviour towards staff performing supervisory or managerial roles. Conclusion As no aspect of Mr Short’s claims have been made out, the application must be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.