Tyson v Heiko Constructions Trading as Heiko Constructions Pty Ltd

In *Tyson v Heiko Constructions Trading as Heiko Constructions Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Mr Tyson, brought proceedings against his former employer, Heiko Constructions Pty Ltd, alleging adverse action under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). Mr Tyson contended that his dismissal was a consequence of specific complaints he had made and coercive comments made to him by his supervisor. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia before Judge Vasta.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether Mr Tyson had been dismissed in contravention of the *Fair Work Act 2009* due to adverse action, specifically whether he had exercised a workplace right and whether he had been subjected to coercion. The Court was required to determine if the alleged coercion, as pleaded under section 343 of the Act, was made out, and if not, whether it could consider coercion under section 348 of the Act based on the established facts. Furthermore, the Court had to assess whether the respondent employer had discharged its onus of proof in demonstrating that the adverse action was not taken for a prohibited reason.

Judge Vasta found that while coercion under section 343 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* was not established on the facts, the Court could and did consider whether coercion under section 348 of the Act was made out. The Court ultimately made a finding of coercion under section 348. The Court determined that Mr Tyson had exercised a workplace right. Crucially, the respondent failed to discharge its onus of proving that the adverse action taken against Mr Tyson was not for a prohibited reason, namely the exercise of his workplace rights and the coercion he experienced.