The Federal Court held that in a general protections claim under s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act, the central question is the actual reason for the adverse action, not whether the employer's underlying direction (here, to disclose vaccination status) was lawful and reasonable. The lawfulness and reasonableness of an employer's direction is not dispositive; what matters is whether the employer was actuated by a proscribed reason, and the s 361 presumption is rebutted where the trial judge accepts the employer's direct evidence about its reasons, particularly where those reasons are 'objectively justifiable' and supported by documentary records. The Court confirmed that appellate deference to credibility-based factual findings remains robust, describing such findings as 'nearly invulnerable' where they depend to a substantial degree on the trial judge's assessment of witnesses.
The full text is available to signed-in members.