Stanton-Long v Federation Training (No.3)
Case
•
[2019] FCCA 337
•26 February 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Stanton-Long v Federation Training (No.3) [2019] FCCA 337
[2019] FCCA 337
26 February 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Stanton-Long (the applicant) brought proceedings against Federation Training (the respondent) in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the respondent's alleged contravention of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) (the Act), specifically relating to the applicant's employment. The applicant alleged that the respondent had engaged in adverse action against her by terminating her employment, and that this adverse action was taken because of her exercise of a workplace right, namely making a complaint about her employment.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had taken adverse action against the applicant by terminating her employment, and if so, whether the reason for that adverse action was the applicant's exercise of a workplace right. The Court was required to determine if the applicant had established a contravention of section 340(1) of the Act, which prohibits taking adverse action against a person because they have a workplace right.
In reaching its decision, the Court considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the circumstances surrounding the termination of the applicant's employment. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *Blyth v Carter* and *BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sharp* concerning the onus of proof in adverse action claims. The Court found that the applicant had discharged her onus of proof by establishing that she had exercised a workplace right and that adverse action had been taken against her. Crucially, the Court then considered the respondent's explanation for the termination and determined that the respondent had failed to establish that it did not take the adverse action for a prohibited reason. The Court concluded that the respondent's stated reasons for termination were not the true reasons, and that the applicant's exercise of a workplace right was a substantial and operative reason for the termination.
The Court ordered that the respondent had contravened section 340(1) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had taken adverse action against the applicant by terminating her employment, and if so, whether the reason for that adverse action was the applicant's exercise of a workplace right. The Court was required to determine if the applicant had established a contravention of section 340(1) of the Act, which prohibits taking adverse action against a person because they have a workplace right.
In reaching its decision, the Court considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the circumstances surrounding the termination of the applicant's employment. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *Blyth v Carter* and *BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sharp* concerning the onus of proof in adverse action claims. The Court found that the applicant had discharged her onus of proof by establishing that she had exercised a workplace right and that adverse action had been taken against her. Crucially, the Court then considered the respondent's explanation for the termination and determined that the respondent had failed to establish that it did not take the adverse action for a prohibited reason. The Court concluded that the respondent's stated reasons for termination were not the true reasons, and that the applicant's exercise of a workplace right was a substantial and operative reason for the termination.
The Court ordered that the respondent had contravened section 340(1) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
3
Ashby v Slipper (No 2)
[2014] FCAFC 67
Comcare v John Holland Pty Ltd
[2016] FCA 501
Fox v St Barbara Mines Ltd
[1998] FCA 621