Stephens v Australian Postal Corporation [2014] FCA 732

Stephens v Australian Postal Corporation [2014] FCA 732

The appeal was dismissed because, on the evidence, there was no vacant position at the time the appellant applied, and accordingly, there was no refusal to employ for the purposes of adverse action under the Fair Work Act. Furthermore, if there was a refusal, the only reason for it was the lack of vacancy, not a prohibited reason such as exercise of workplace rights or disability. The onus under s 361 was discharged by the respondent's decision-maker giving accepted evidence that he was unaware of the applicant's prior claims or alleged disability, and all positions were filled or cancelled before the application was received.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['adverse Action' 'refusal to Employ' 'discrimination' 'onus of Proof' 'workplace Rights' 'disability Discrimination']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['adverse Action' 'refusal to Employ' 'discrimination' 'onus of Proof' 'workplace Rights' 'disability Discrimination']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a refusal to employ under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 342(1) where no positions were vacant' 'Whether any refusal to employ the appellant was for a prohibited reason including the exercise of a workplace right or due to disability' 'The proper application of the onus of proof under Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 361']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, on the evidence, there was no vacant position at the time the appellant applied, and accordingly, there was no refusal to employ for the purposes of adverse action under the Fair Work Act. Furthermore, if there was a refusal, the only reason for it was the lack of vacancy, not a prohibited reason such as exercise of workplace rights or disability. The onus under s 361 was discharged by the respondent's decision-maker giving accepted evidence that he was unaware of the applicant's prior claims or alleged disability, and all positions were filled or cancelled before the application was received.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']