Fair Work Ombudsman v Tiger Telco Pty Ltd (in liq) [2012] FCA 479

Fair Work Ombudsman v Tiger Telco Pty Ltd (in liq) [2012] FCA 479

The second respondent was involved in contraventions by failing to return the employee to her pre-parental leave position and failing to consult her as required by the Fair Work Act, and also engaged in adverse action due to her pregnancy and carer’s responsibilities; the agreed penalty is appropriate and should be paid to the employee.

Parties
Applicant: Fair Work Ombudsman; First Respondent: Tiger Telco Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 119 342 371); Second Respondent: Ibrahim (Abraham) Ramadan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding / Final Judgment After Agreed Facts and Submissions
Outcome
Declarations made, penalty of $5,940 imposed on the second respondent, payable to the employee; proceedings otherwise dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Failure to Return to Pre Parental Leave Position, Failure to Consult Employee, Adverse Action Due to Pregnancy, Family or Carer's Responsibilities, Assessment of Civil Penalty
Industrial Law Employment Law Discrimination Law Failure to Return to Pre Parental Leave Position Failure to Consult Employee Adverse Action Due to Pregnancy Family or Carer's Responsibilities Assessment of Civil Penalty

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fair Work Ombudsman

Applicant

Tiger Telco Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 119 342 371)

First Respondent

Ibrahim (Abraham) Ramadan

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Penalty Proceeding / Final Judgment After Agreed Facts and Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent was involved in contraventions of s 44(1) and s 351(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to return an employee to her pre-parental leave position
  3. 3 Whether there was a failure to consult employee on significant changes affecting her position

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent was involved in contraventions by failing to return the employee to her pre-parental leave position and failing to consult her as required by the Fair Work Act, and also engaged in adverse action due to her pregnancy and carer’s responsibilities; the agreed penalty is appropriate and should be paid to the employee.

Court Disposition

Declarations made, penalty of $5,940 imposed on the second respondent, payable to the employee; proceedings otherwise dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • A penalty of $5,940 be imposed on the second respondent for engaging in conduct in contravention of ss 44(1) and 351(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
  • The penalty referred to in order 1 be paid to Michelle Jorgensen within sixty days of the making of these orders.