Lamont v University of Queensland (No 2) [2020] FCA 720

Lamont v University of Queensland (No 2) [2020] FCA 720

The University, through certain officials, contravened s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act by taking adverse action against Dr Lamont because he exercised workplace rights, specifically: (1) disclosure of a confidential complaint to other staff by Prof Moore; (2) Prof Fotheringham's threat of disciplinary investigation; and (3) the University setting aside and refusing to provide the Byrom Report, contrary to the Staff Grievance Resolution Policy and procedural fairness. These acts were causally connected to Dr Lamont exercising workplace rights, constituted injury in employment, and justified compensation under s 545 of the Fair Work Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment/industrial Relations Application / Post Trial; Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application partially upheld; compensation awarded for established contraventions of s 340(1) FWA. Other allegations dismissed. Quantum of penalties, costs, and any further relief to be determined after further submissions.
Legal Topics
['adverse Action' 'workplace Rights' 'general Protections—fair Work Act' 'enterprise Agreements' 'implied Contractual Terms' 'breach of Contract' 'compensation for Distress']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law' 'contract Law'] ['adverse Action' 'workplace Rights' 'general Protections—fair Work Act' 'enterprise Agreements' 'implied Contractual Terms' 'breach of Contract' 'compensation for Distress']

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

Employment/industrial Relations Application / Post Trial; Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the University of Queensland and/or its officials took adverse action against Dr Lamont contrary to s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)' 'Whether certain conduct breached Enterprise Agreements' 'Whether the University breached implied terms of the contract of employment']

Ratio Decidendi

The University, through certain officials, contravened s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act by taking adverse action against Dr Lamont because he exercised workplace rights, specifically: (1) disclosure of a confidential complaint to other staff by Prof Moore; (2) Prof Fotheringham's threat of disciplinary investigation; and (3) the University setting aside and refusing to provide the Byrom Report, contrary to the Staff Grievance Resolution Policy and procedural fairness. These acts were causally connected to Dr Lamont exercising workplace rights, constituted injury in employment, and justified compensation under s 545 of the Fair Work Act.

Court Disposition

Application partially upheld; compensation awarded for established contraventions of s 340(1) FWA. Other allegations dismissed. Quantum of penalties, costs, and any further relief to be determined after further submissions.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent pay the applicant $15,000 by way of compensation for loss arising from the first respondent's contraventions of s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)." 'The applicant file and serve submissions (not exceeding 15 pages) and any affidavits on penalties, costs and other relief by 15 June...