Titan v Weatherford CSG Drilling Pty Ltd

Titan (the applicant) brought proceedings against Weatherford CSG Drilling Pty Ltd (the respondent) in the Federal Court of Australia, alleging contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) (the Act). The applicant claimed that his employment was terminated by the respondent in contravention of section 340(1) of the Act, which prohibits adverse action against an employee for exercising a workplace right. Specifically, the applicant contended that his termination was motivated by his exercise of a workplace right to take leave due to a prescribed injury, and alternatively, to prevent him from exercising a workplace right to make a complaint about his injury and treatment.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant had been subjected to adverse action, and if so, whether the reason for that action was one prohibited by the Act. This involved determining whether the applicant had a workplace right to take leave for his prescribed injury and whether he had a workplace right to make a complaint. The Court was also required to consider the respondent's conduct and the applicant's alleged reasons for termination, assessing whether the respondent's actions were taken because of the applicant's exercise or proposed exercise of these workplace rights.

In his reasoning, Judge Burnett considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the circumstances surrounding the applicant's termination. The Court analysed the nature of the applicant's injury, the medical advice received, and the respondent's policies and actions in response to the applicant's absence and requests for leave. The Court also examined the applicant's communications with the respondent concerning his injury and any potential complaints. The legal principle applied was that the onus rests on the applicant to establish that the prohibited reason was a cause of the adverse action, even if not the sole cause. The Court found that the applicant had not discharged this onus, concluding that the respondent's decision to terminate the applicant's employment was not substantially caused by the applicant exercising, or proposing to exercise, a workplace right.

The Court ordered that the application be dismissed.