The Court held that the applicant's dismissal contravened s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act because discussions about remuneration with colleagues (protected under s 333B) and complaints about being denied ERT training (a workplace right under s 341(1)(c)(ii)) were substantial and operative reasons for the termination. The respondent failed to discharge the reverse onus under s 361, principally because the key decision-maker (Mr Alexander) made clear concessions in cross-examination that the remuneration discussions and ERT training complaints were critical to his termination decision, his later disavowal of those concessions was rejected as unreliable, the applicant was not cross-examined, and a key corroborating witness (Ms Shepherd) was not called. The Court noted but did not resolve the broader uncertainty about whether s 341(1)(c)(ii) requires a source of entitlement to complain, finding on the facts that the applicant's approved ERT application form conferred a sufficient entitlement.
The full text is available to signed-in members.