Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 SEPTEMBER 2012

High Court settles debate on adverse action

Holding Redlich
Holding Redlich
Contributor
Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich

Holding Redlich is a large national commercial firm with offices in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Holding Redlich

Direct testimony from the decision-maker, accepted as reliable, is capable of discharging the burden upon an employer.

AustraliaEmployment and HR

In a judgment handed down today, the High Court has clarified the operation of the General Protections provisions of the Fair Work Act. Prior to today's decision, there had been extensive debate about whether a subjective or objective test was to be applied to determine the reason why adverse action was taken by an employer against an employee.

In The Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE v Barclay [2012] HCA 32, the Court held that:

"...the central question remains "why was the adverse action taken?. This question is one of fact, which must be answered in the light of all the facts established in the proceeding. Generally, it will be extremely difficult to displace the statutory presumption if no direct testimony is given by the decision-maker acting on behalf of the employer. Direct evidence of the reason why a decision-maker took adverse action, which may include positive evidence that the action was not taken for a prohibited reason, may be unreliable

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from