Fair Work Commission

Wilkie v National Storage Operations Pty Ltd [2013] FCCA 1056 (9 August 2013).

The Court found that adverse action was taken against the applicant when the respondent issued a final written warning, transferred the applicant against her wishes and demoted her, which resulted in her ultimate dismissal.

This adverse action directly resulted from an incident where she had to leave work early to pick up her primary school-aged son, after providing 24 hours’ notice. As this unexpected emergency resulted from her responsibilities as a parent it was held to constitute family responsibilities.

Compensation ordered

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $32,130.78 for loss suffered.

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Atkins [2014] FCCA 1553 (18 August 2014).

The respondent sacked a heavy vehicle driver for taking carer’s leave to take his daughter to a doctor’s appointment. The respondent made threats of violence towards him, his family and his union solicitor when he instituted legal proceedings, and performed ‘burnouts’ outside the applicant’s residence.

The respondent admitted threatening the driver and the TWU solicitor who represented him, but denied threatening the driver’s family. He apologised to both the driver and the solicitor.

The Court ordered that the respondent undertake a course of treatment by a counsellor or psychologist after he admitted in cross-examination to having anger management issues.

Penalty ordered

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $10,000 as a pecuniary penalty.

Compensation ordered

The respondent was ordered to pay the affected employee $10,000 for non-economic loss.

Wolfe v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2013] FMCA 65 (7 February 2013).

Family responsibilities were held not to constitute the reason for dismissal as the outcome was the result of a valid restructuring exercise.

Aitken v Virgin Australia Airlines and Vandeven v Virgin Australia Airlines [2013] FCCA 981 (8 August 2013).

The Court found that pregnancy, maternity leave and family responsibilities did not provide the basis for the termination of two employees and instead that their redundancies were based on operational reasons. However, both applicants were awarded one week’s pay as the respondent had failed to appropriately consult regarding the restructure of the company and the redundancies.