Dismissal after pay dispute leads to reinstatement order

Court examines dismissal procedures and worker's right to court intervention

Dismissal after pay dispute leads to reinstatement order

The Federal Court of Australia recently dealt with an employment rights case where a worker sought interim reinstatement after being dismissed.

The transport company terminated his employment, citing logbook discrepancies, shortly after he raised questions about award entitlements.

The employer challenged the Court's jurisdiction over the reinstatement request, arguing the worker should have first approached the Fair Work Commission within 21 days of dismissal. The case examined when workers can directly seek court intervention through interim injunctions.

The matter highlighted questions around workplace rights protection and procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), particularly regarding dismissal disputes and court applications.

Background of the case

On February 7, 2024, the worker began employment as a truck driver at the employer's Stawell site in Victoria. His employment agreement included a $90,000 base salary plus 11% superannuation, with a six-month probation period allowing termination by either party with one week's notice.

On May 12, 2024, he sent a detailed email to the transport manager claiming coverage under the Road Transport and Distribution Award 2020.

His calculations showed approximately $4,800 in missing entitlements over three months, including penalty rates and allowances.

The operations manager responded on June 20, 2024, acknowledging potential award coverage: "Therefore, we are currently undertaking an assessment of what you would have been entitled to under the Award (including minimum rates, overtime and penalties) compared to what you have actually been paid during the period of employment."

Employer uncovers discrepancies in records

On July 30, 2024, the transport manager suspended the worker with pay, alleging discrepancies between his logbook entries and the truck's electronic control module data. The letter detailed specific dates where electronic records didn't match written entries.

The worker attended a meeting on July 31, 2024, as directed by management. According to the Court's findings, he claimed he wasn't given adequate notice of the allegations or sufficient time to prepare his response.

On August 6, 2024, management terminated his employment, citing breaches of Heavy Vehicle National Laws and Regulations.

The dismissal letter referred to "errors, discrepancies and/or you have falsified your records required to be maintained by you under the Heavy Vehicle National Laws and Regulations."

The employer argued the Court lacked jurisdiction since the worker hadn't filed a Fair Work Commission application within 21 days of dismissal, as typically required under section 366(1) of the Fair Work Act.

The Court addressed this by examining sections 365 and 366 of the Fair Work Act, citing earlier case law which stated: "Section 365 defines the persons who are entitled to make a general protections application to the FWC involving dismissal... Section 366 conditions the manner in which such a person's application must be made."

The Court ultimately found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, particularly as the application included a request for interim injunction under section 370(b) of the Fair Work Act.

FWC reinstates worker

The Court found a strong initial case, stating: "There is a reasonable circumstantial case, arising from the order of events, that the inquiry conducted by [the transport company] that led to the suspension of [the worker]... was brought about because [the worker] had exercised or proposed to exercise a workplace right."

In assessing the practical impact, the Court noted: "I accept for the purpose of this application that [the worker] has not been able to find other employment, and that the circumstances of his dismissal by [the transport company] have been a contributing factor. I accept that this has had a significant effect on [the worker's] livelihood, earning capacity, and mental state."

The Court ordered reinstatement from the date of the order, explaining that "the stigma associated with [the worker's] dismissal... is not something that can readily be addressed by a money award, especially taking into account the nature of some of the allegations upon which the dismissal was founded." The worker was required to give the usual undertaking as to damages, and a further case management hearing was scheduled for January 31, 2025.