Bossak v Murrumbidgee Local Health District [2019] NSWIRComm 1054

Bossak v Murrumbidgee Local Health District [2019] NSWIRComm 1054

The applicant was not victimised by the respondent within the meaning of section 210 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, as no conduct by the respondent since the employment began in 2005 was done for a proscribed reason under the Act, and negotiated changes to employment terms were not 'forced' or victimising but made with the applicant's agreement following failure to achieve required qualifications. The recommendations in the Smyth Report arose from genuine performance concerns, not for any prohibited reason, and do not constitute victimisation. The applicant's claim for relief is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Dr Peter Bossak; Respondent: Murrumbidgee Local Health District
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief From Victimisation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Workplace Bullying, Award Entitlements, Performance Management, Employment Contracts
Employment Law Industrial Relations Victimisation Workplace Bullying Award Entitlements Performance Management Employment Contracts

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Peter Bossak

Applicant

Murrumbidgee Local Health District

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Relief From Victimisation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was victimised within the meaning of s 210 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether actions taken by the employer constituted victimisation for a proscribed reason under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the negotiated changes to employment were forced 'agreements' and thus victimising

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not victimised by the respondent within the meaning of section 210 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, as no conduct by the respondent since the employment began in 2005 was done for a proscribed reason under the Act, and negotiated changes to employment terms were not 'forced' or victimising but made with the applicant's agreement following failure to achieve required qualifications. The recommendations in the Smyth Report arose from genuine performance concerns, not for any prohibited reason, and do not constitute victimisation. The applicant's claim for relief is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Application for Relief from Victimisation by Dr Peter Bossak pursuant to section 213 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 is dismissed.