What a long-serving employee's legal battle reveals about 'speak-up' rights
A nearly 17-year Woolworths employee was dismissed, then sued. On 17 April 2026, a federal court threw out every single claim.
Marc Anthony Estonina worked for Woolworths Group Ltd from June 2007 until 5 February 2024, when the supermarket terminated his employment, sparking a legal dispute spanning sexual harassment, underpayment, enterprise agreement breaches, workplace safety, CEO liability and defamation.
Judge Manousaridis of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia summarily dismissed both proceedings.
In March 2019, a co-worker sent Estonina a series of text messages, one containing a photograph of a male without any clothing above his waist. Estonina did not report the incident until September 2022. Woolworths investigated, substantiated the complaint, and acknowledged a delay. Separately, it acknowledged underpaying Estonina during COVID isolation in 2022, with corrections made in September 2022 and January 2023.
The workplace relationship deteriorated from late 2022. Between September 2022 and March 2023, Estonina sent approximately 90 emails to Woolworths' People Advisory team and other individuals, many repeating the same concerns. On 30 March 2023, senior management handed Estonina a letter directing him to raise concerns through his line manager first and cease correspondence on resolved matters, warning that non-compliance could result in termination. One day later he sent two emails on already-resolved matters. Woolworths issued a final warning on 21 April 2023.
In August 2023, a separate incident at the Caringbah store involved allegations that Estonina had spoken aggressively to a team member and a visiting manager. Three of five misconduct allegations were substantiated: speaking to both in a raised voice and aggressive tone; breaching confidentiality by discussing the investigation with colleagues and obtaining their signatures on statements he had prepared; and failing to follow the direction to raise new issues with his store manager. On 5 February 2024, Woolworths terminated his employment.
Estonina, self-represented, filed two proceedings: one against former CEO Bradford Banducci and one against Woolworths Group Ltd. His claims spanned the Fair Work Act 2009, the Corporations Act 2001, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Defamation Act 2005. He also raised occupational health and safety concerns, including over a milk trolley design he alleged had been ignored through his escalation chain. The court found none of his claims had reasonable prospects of success, and both proceedings were found to be vexatious.
On "speak up" rights under clause 2.6 of the enterprise agreement, the court drew a firm line: "Clause 2.6 does not contemplate that a team member can speak up on any topic, without limit to how many times they may speak up on a topic, whether or not it relates to his or her employment, only because the team member subjectively feels that the things about which he or she speaks up about is not right. Nor does cl 2.6 contemplate that the team member could continually speak up on the same thing if he or she does not obtain the resolution of the speak up the team member believes he or she should obtain."
The sexual harassment claim was barred on two grounds: section 527D of the Fair Work Act was not in effect until 6 December 2022, after the 2019 incident, and Estonina had not filed a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. The proceedings against Banducci personally were also found to be "vexatious and an abuse of process."
The case crystallises several practical realities. Written directions about how and where employees raise concerns carry significant legal weight, particularly when backed by documented progressive discipline, including a final warning. "Speak up" clauses in enterprise agreements are not open-ended, and courts may find employers can impose reasonable limits after persistent misuse. Where genuine errors occur, addressing them promptly and on the record limits future legal exposure.
