Merrick v Wallace Bishop Pty Ltd [2008] NSWADT 89

Merrick v Wallace Bishop Pty Ltd [2008] NSWADT 89

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses where it conflicted with the applicant's evidence and found that the respondent made reasonable arrangements to accommodate the applicant's need to take a break to care for her daughter. The roster changes were made for business and staffing reasons and to ensure the applicant worked her contracted hours, not because of her carers' responsibilities or complaints of discrimination. The applicant did not prove less favourable treatment on the ground of carers' responsibility, did not prove a refusal of carers' leave amounting to discrimination, and did not prove that her detriment was causally linked to her allegations of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Complaints of Carers' Responsibility Discrimination and Victimisation Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Principal Matter; Final Decision After Tribunal Inquiry
Outcome
The complaints of carers' responsibility discrimination and victimisation were not substantiated and were dismissed.
Legal Topics
["carers' Responsibility Discrimination" 'direct Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'employment Rosters' "carers' Leave"]
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ["carers' Responsibility Discrimination" 'direct Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'employment Rosters' "carers' Leave"]

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

Complaints of Carers' Responsibility Discrimination and Victimisation Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Principal Matter; Final Decision After Tribunal Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent directly discriminated against the applicant on the ground of her responsibilities as a carer by rostering her on 21 September 2006 from 8.00am to 9.00pm and allegedly denying her a break around 7.00pm to inject her daughter.' 'Whether the respondent directly discriminated against the applicant by issuing an October 2006 roster requiring her to work Thursdays from 8.00am to 8.00pm.' "Whether the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the applicant by refusing to extend carers' leave allegedly available under her employment agreement." "Whether the applicant was victimised under s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 because she alleged that the respondent's conduct was discriminatory."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses where it conflicted with the applicant's evidence and found that the respondent made reasonable arrangements to accommodate the applicant's need to take a break to care for her daughter. The roster changes were made for business and staffing reasons and to ensure the applicant worked her contracted hours, not because of her carers' responsibilities or complaints of discrimination. The applicant did not prove less favourable treatment on the ground of carers' responsibility, did not prove a refusal of carers' leave amounting to discrimination, and did not prove that her detriment was causally linked to her allegations of...

Court Disposition

The complaints of carers' responsibility discrimination and victimisation were not substantiated and were dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The complaints of discrimination on the ground of carers' responsibility is not substantiated and is dismissed" 'That the claim of victimisation is not substantiated and is dismissed']