Timing looked damning - until one date in the manager's evidence settled it
A recruiter let go days after raising a bullying complaint can look like payback. It rarely is, and a recent decision shows why.
In Treffry v Bluescope Steel Ltd, decided on June 12, 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed a former recruiter's claim that BlueScope Steel had terminated him for exercising a workplace right.
The employee joined BlueScope on June 3, 2024, as a Talent Acquisition Partner, on a six-month probation. The court accepted that he lodged a bullying complaint on September 30, 2024, claiming he had faced "unfair standards, repeated baseless criticism, and a refusal to act in good faith." His employment was terminated on November 22, 2024 - two days before his probation ended. He sought $50,000 and argued the tight gap between complaint and dismissal proved adverse action.
This is where HR teams should pay attention. The Fair Work Act's general protections carry a "reverse onus." Once a worker shows they used a workplace right, the employer must prove that right was not a substantial and operative reason for what followed. The burden sits with the employer.
BlueScope met it. The case turned on the evidence of the employee's direct manager, whom the court described as "a considered and credible witness." She set out performance concerns that began within weeks: missed deadlines on "Authority to Hire" requests, an HR manager asking that he be removed from an urgent role because he was too slow, errors in job advertisements, and complaints from across the business. She held performance meetings in June, August and September 2024.
The clincher was the calendar. The manager testified she decided to end the employment on September 25, 2024 - five days before the bullying complaint was lodged. The court accepted she was the sole decision-maker and reached that view on her own. That sequence sank the claim.
The court also viewed the employee's evidence "with a considerable degree of scepticism," pointing to an earlier Fair Work Commission finding that he had lied to a former employer and to his admission that he had embellished his CV to hide a gap in employment.
The employer did not escape entirely clean. The court said that, at its highest, the company's request that he provide evidence of his brother's death to support compassionate leave could "be described as insensitive." But this was a passing observation, not a finding against the company - the court was clear the request played no part in the decision to dismiss.
So what does this mean for how you run your function? Your timeline is either your shield or your weak point. Record performance concerns in real time, run and minute regular check-ins, and be clear about who makes the call to terminate. When a manager can show - with dated evidence - that the decision came before a protected complaint, the reverse onus is far easier to satisfy. And handle leave and bereavement requests with care. A request can be lawful and still land badly.
The application was dismissed. The court gave the company seven days to make any application for costs.
