New management meant the threat had 'dissipated,' the Federal Court ruled
A CEO who won court protection from alleged retaliation lost it two months later when corporate restructuring put new management in charge.
Rebecca Fiona Greer thought she had secured her position. In October 2025, a Federal Court judge granted injunctions preventing Bandjalang Aboriginal Corporation from firing her after she complained about workplace bullying. By December, those protections were gone.
The case offers a stark lesson in how quickly workplace protections can evaporate when corporate governance shifts, even when the employee facing termination remains the same.
Greer served as CEO of the Indigenous corporation when trouble erupted in mid-2025. She repeatedly told her employer that a small group of members, including at least two directors, were threatening and bullying her. In July, she filed a complaint with SafeWork NSW.
The pushback came fast. In August, members called a meeting to vote on terminating her employment. The proposed reasons included making the SafeWork complaint, along with allegations of serious misconduct, contract breaches, and fraud. Two directors signed a termination notice.
Greer sued, arguing the corporation was punishing her for speaking up about workplace problems, a violation of Fair Work Act protections against adverse action. Justice Longbottom sided with her on October 10, 2025, issuing orders that barred the corporation from firing her or launching misconduct investigations.
Then the ground shifted. On December 11, 2025, regulators appointed a special administrator to take over Bandjalang. Under the governing legislation, every director's position immediately became vacant. The administrator, Mr. McQuoid, assumed complete control over the corporation's operations, including all employment decisions.
The corporation moved quickly to dissolve the injunctions. Their reasoning was simple: the directors accused of retaliation no longer had any authority. The threat had disappeared.
When Justice Rangiah heard the urgent application on December 22, 2025, the administrator painted a grim financial picture. The corporation faced significant money troubles, including unpaid superannuation and workers' compensation premiums. McQuoid's preliminary assessment suggested the organization could not afford Greer's salary and could function with one employee earning less than half what the CEO made.
In his affidavit, McQuoid addressed the elephant in the room. Any employment decisions he made would stem from his financial review and corporate governance duties, he stated, adding: "In making those decisions, I will not be having any regard to this dispute, any claims filed by the Applicant, or any complaints or enquiries she has made to BAC, or any other matter that does not arise from my statutory duties."
Greer fought back, challenging the administrator's financial conclusions and questioning the need for her role to be eliminated. She also raised a pointed concern: when the administration would end in May 2026, the original directors could return, reviving the retaliation threat.
Justice Rangiah granted the application. He found the circumstances had changed fundamentally. "The fundamental factor underlying Longbottom J's orders was the risk that some of the directors of Bandjalang would, in contravention of s 340 of the FWA, attempt to terminate Ms Greer's employment or conduct an investigation for alleged misconduct because she had made a complaint to WorkSafe NSW," he wrote. That risk had dissipated.
The injunctions were lifted.
For HR professionals managing executive-level disputes, the case demonstrates how corporate restructuring can reset workplace protection cases, even when termination appears likely regardless of who makes the decision. The change in decision-maker, the court concluded, was enough to change the legal equation.
