Parry v University of South Australia [2022] FCA 49

Procedural Posture

Application Alleging Adverse Action in Contravention of S 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Final Judgment in the Federal Court of Australia, Fair Work Division

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether Mr Parry possessed and exercised workplace rights to protect his health and safety at work and to make complaints or enquiries concerning workplace safety.' "Whether Mr Parry's failure or refusal to attend to daily hydration and care of specimens constituted the exercise of a workplace right." "Whether the University's reasons for dismissing Mr Parry included his possession or exercise of workplace rights, contrary to s 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Parry had workplace rights to raise complaints or enquiries about workplace safety and to take steps to protect his health and safety, and he exercised those rights in limited respects. However, his failure to attend to daily hydration and care of the specimens was not caused by or explained by the exercise of those workplace rights, but by his belief that the task was unnecessary. The University discharged the onus under s 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by proving that the reason for dismissal was Dr Massy-Westropp's conclusion that Mr Parry had failed to perform duties she considered central to his role, and that the reasons did not include any reason prohibited by s 340.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

• ['The application is dismissed.']