ARTICLE
2 November 2024

Who is really pulling the strings? Identifying decision makers is key in defending adverse action claims

HR
Holding Redlich

Contributor

Holding Redlich, a national commercial law firm with offices in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane, and Cairns, delivers tailored solutions with expert legal thinking and industry knowledge, prioritizing client partnerships.
Employers failing to identify decision makers could be a deal breaker in defending a general protections claim.
Australia Employment and HR

Two recent Federal Court cases demonstrate that employers failing to identify decision makers involved in an adverse action claim could be a deal breaker in defending a general protections claim.

Under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), the general protections scheme provides wide-ranging protections against adverse or unfair treatment because of prohibited reasons such as:

  • a person exercising or proposes to exercise a workplace right, including making a complaint or enquiry in relation to the employee's employment
  • discrimination
  • temporary absence from work due to illness or injury.

The reverse onus in a general protections claim

Where an employee alleges that their employer has taken adverse action against them, section 361 of the FW Act operates so that it is presumed that the adverse action was taken because of the prohibited reason(s) unless the employer proves otherwise.

Under the provision, the employer has the onus of proving that the pleaded prohibited reason or intention for taking the action was not a substantial or operative part of its reasons for engaging in the conduct or action. In practical terms, the employer is required to establish:

  • the identity of the decision maker, or decision makers, involved in the conduct or action
  • the reasons why the decision maker, or decision makers, engaged in the conduct or action.

Discharging the reverse onus in a general protections claim can be challenging for employers, especially when multiple 'decision makers' are involved in an employee's dismissal. The court is not confined to the considerations of the ultimate decision maker on paper. That is, if the decision maker has relied on information, a recommendation or assessment from others to take adverse action, the reasons given by those individuals must also be identified and defended to show they were not motivated by a prohibited reason.

Failure to identify and call all relevant 'decision makers' can be fatal to discharging the reverse onus.

Recent case examples

Atkins v North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Ltd [2024] FCA 686

In this case, the applicant was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the respondent. During her employment, she exercised a workplace right by making a complaint to the respondent's board of directors (Board) in November 2022, which included several allegations regarding the performance and conduct of the respondent's Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The applicant's appointment as CEO was terminated by resolution of the Board in January 2023 before being dismissed via a letter in February 2023.

The applicant alleged that there were five adverse actions taken against her:

  • the decision to suspend her from her employment
  • the decision to refer to an external consultant, BDO Australia Ltd (BDO), a series of matters for investigation, each involving whether the applicant had engaged in misconduct in the performance of her duties as CEO
  • the resolution passed, or purportedly passed, by the respondent's Board to terminate the applicant's employment following the receipt of BDO's report containing findings of misconduct against her
  • the decision to send the applicant a letter containing a series of allegations and seeking her response. The applicant responded to the allegations and requested for a further opportunity to provide more details to her response at the same time.
  • the letter to the applicant notifying her that she had been dismissed from her employment without providing her with more time to respond.

In determining liability, Charlesworth J was satisfied that each of the above actions taken against the applicant met the 'adverse actions' definition in the FW Act.

In respect to the respondent engaging BDO to investigate the alleged misconduct of the applicant, the respondent argued that BDO was engaged due to concerns from the directors that the applicant had engaged in misconduct, which adversely affected the respondent's financial position and reputation. These concerns arose after the applicant made her complaint, however, there were no connections with the applicant's complaint.

Justice Charlesworth found the following evidence presented by the respondent to be vague and variable:

  • who, when and why the alleged concerns were raised
  • when and who BDO was engaged by
  • who was responsible for identifying the scope of the investigation
  • who provided BDO with the documentation.

Her Honour found that there was evidence that the CFO had a substantial role in the above processes and was involved in communications relating to the applicant's employment. Her Honour noted that the CFO was not called to explain the extent of their involvement and that the evidence does not otherwise provide an explanation for the involvement that would assist the respondent's case.

In handing down the decision, Justice Charlesworth stated that:

  • the key question is whether a person's involvement has a "material effect on the ultimate decision" or exerted substantial or essential influence
  • the person does not necessarily need to occupy a position with the capacity to bind a company in a legal sense to have substantial or essential influence
  • there is no requirement for the person to be labelled as a 'decision maker' for their conduct to be relevant in assessing whether an employer acted for a prohibited reason
  • the reverse onus under section 361 of the FW Act effectively requires an employer to satisfy the Court that all relevant witnesses have been called to testify as to their reasons for participating in the relevant action against the employee
  • practically,an employer may find itself in the difficult position of attempting to dispel an inference arising from the evidence in relation to the influence of an employee or agent of the employer who has not been called to testify
  • If the employer fails to address any inference or concern from the evidence, the Court may have reservations about the employer's case.

Pilbrow v University of Melbourne [2024] FCA 1140

The applicant in this case contended that she made various complaints to the respondent who then took adverse action against her by accusing her of serious misconduct, making her position redundant and dismissing her on the grounds of redundancy.

Both the applicant and respondent agreed that the applicant exercised various workplace rights and that the respondent engaged in four adverse actions, namely:

  • the decision to make the applicant's position redundant
  • the dismissal
  • alleging that the applicant engaged in serious misconduct
  • issuing the applicant with a final written warning.

The issue was whether any of the above adverse actions were taken because of one or more workplace rights exercised by the applicant. At first instance, the primary judge dismissed the applicant's general protections application, except for the claim relating to the final written warning issued to her.

On appeal, Snaden J dismissed several grounds of the appeal. However, in respect to the appeal ground relating to the adverse action of alleging serious misconduct against the applicant, his Honour observed that the neither party had clearly identified which employees or agents of the respondent were involved in putting the allegation of serious misconduct to the applicant in the way that it did.

Justice Snaden opined this to be a matter of some significance and since the respondent admitted to the adverse action, its successful defence relied on proving two things:

  • the identity of the person or people through whom it relevantly acted
  • the innocent state or states of mind that relevantly actuated that person or those people, with this requiring proof of the former.

Upon reviewing the evidence, Snaden J found "considerable—indeed, I think, insurmountable—uncertainty" about who within the respondent decided to make the serious misconduct allegation, including because the decision appeared to be handled by the respondent's human resources team, yet the evidence did not identify who, within that team, was relied upon to that end.

As a consequence, Snaden J held that the primary judge was wrong to find that the respondent had discharged the reverse onus with respect to the serious misconduct allegation in circumstances where the particular decision maker or decision makers were not identified.

Key takeaways

When defending a general protections claim, it is crucial to consider who should provide evidence – including individuals involved in the decision-making process who may have influenced the ultimate decision. Failure to do so may result in a court finding that the reverse onus has not been discharged.

If you have any questions regarding this article, please get in touch with a member of our team below.

This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More