PIA Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v King [2020] FCAFC 15

PIA Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v King [2020] FCAFC 15

The majority held that Mr King exercised a workplace right by making complaints underpinned by contract and statute; PIAMS and Mr Wang contravened s 340(1) FW Act when dismissing him for making those complaints. The minority considered Mr King's complaints not to be ones he was 'able to make' for the purpose of s 341(1)(c)(ii) FW Act, but agreed PIAMS did not discharge its onus to prove the dismissal was not for prohibited reasons. Pecuniary penalties imposed for annual leave contravention were found excessive and reduced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment Following Appeal From Federal Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; parties to provide draft minute of orders reflecting reasons. Penalties for FW Act contraventions adjusted.
Legal Topics
['adverse Action' 'workplace Rights' 'breach of Contract' 'compensation' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'statutory Interpretation']
['employment Law' 'industrial Relations' 'contracts'] ['adverse Action' 'workplace Rights' 'breach of Contract' 'compensation' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'statutory Interpretation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment Following Appeal From Federal Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was dismissed in contravention of s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)' 'Whether the respondent was able to make a complaint or inquiry as contemplated by s 341(1)(c)(ii) of the FW Act' 'Whether penalties imposed for contravention of s 90(2) of the FW Act were excessive' 'Whether the employment contract was breached and whether summary termination was justified' 'Whether statutory compensation awarded was sufficient']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that Mr King exercised a workplace right by making complaints underpinned by contract and statute; PIAMS and Mr Wang contravened s 340(1) FW Act when dismissing him for making those complaints. The minority considered Mr King's complaints not to be ones he was 'able to make' for the purpose of s 341(1)(c)(ii) FW Act, but agreed PIAMS did not discharge its onus to prove the dismissal was not for prohibited reasons. Pecuniary penalties imposed for annual leave contravention were found excessive and reduced.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; parties to provide draft minute of orders reflecting reasons. Penalties for FW Act contraventions adjusted.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed in part.' 'The cross-appeal be allowed in part.' 'Within seven days, the parties are to confer and provide a draft minute of orders reflecting the reasons of the majority.' "Penalty for PIAMS' contravention of s 90(2) FW Act reduced to $8,100." 'Penalty for PIAMS and Mr Wang for s 340(1) FW...