Wu v DSMJ Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1404

Wu v DSMJ Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1404

The Court found that Mr Wu's participation in the on-call roster was required under the terms of his existing employment contract, the direction was lawful and reasonable, and the evidence did not establish that the refusal to undertake on-call was the exercise of a workplace right as defined; therefore, the actions of the respondents did not constitute adverse action, coercion, or undue influence under the Fair Work Act. The additional hours required were reasonable and the employer sufficiently consulted about the workplace change; the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Jianhua Wu; First Respondent: DSMJ Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Joe Colon; Third Respondent: Megan Farrell; Fourth Respondent: Liong Lim; Fifth Respondent: Rohan Tronson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal After Leave Granted; Appeal From Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (division 2)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Action Under Fair Work Act, Lawful and Reasonable Direction in Employment, Consultation Obligations Under Award, Reasonable Additional Hours, On Call Employment Arrangements, Coercion and Undue Influence (employment), Termination of Employment
Industrial Law Employment Law Adverse Action Under Fair Work Act Lawful and Reasonable Direction in Employment Consultation Obligations Under Award Reasonable Additional Hours On Call Employment Arrangements Coercion and Undue Influence (employment) +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jianhua Wu

Appellant

DSMJ Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Joe Colon

Second Respondent

Megan Farrell

Third Respondent

Liong Lim

Fourth Respondent

Rohan Tronson

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal After Leave Granted; Appeal From Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (division 2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employer engaged in adverse action for exercise of workplace right under Fair Work Act
  2. 2 Whether direction to participate in on-call roster was a lawful and reasonable direction
  3. 3 Whether the additional hours required under the on-call arrangement were unreasonable in contravention of s 62 of the Fair Work Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Mr Wu's participation in the on-call roster was required under the terms of his existing employment contract, the direction was lawful and reasonable, and the evidence did not establish that the refusal to undertake on-call was the exercise of a workplace right as defined; therefore, the actions of the respondents did not constitute adverse action, coercion, or undue influence under the Fair Work Act. The additional hours required were reasonable and the employer sufficiently consulted about the workplace change; the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • The appeal is dismissed