Rowland v Alfred Health [2014] FCA 2

Rowland v Alfred Health [2014] FCA 2

The sixth complaint was not a complaint in relation to Mr Rowland's employment because it was essentially a complaint about Professor Esmore's clinical judgment and competence rather than how Professor Esmore related to Mr Rowland in his employment. The restructure and non-selection were adverse action, and termination was adverse action, but Alfred Health discharged its onus under s 361 by cogent and credible evidence that Mr Rowland's complaints were not a substantial and operative factor in the restructure, non-selection, or redundancy; the restructure was driven by dysfunction in the Unit and the selection panel rejected Mr Rowland because of his interview performance, attitude to the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application Alleging Adverse Action for Exercise of Workplace Rights Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adverse Action' 'workplace Rights' 'complaints in Relation to Employment' 'redundancy' 'restructure' 'statutory Presumption Under S 361']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['adverse Action' 'workplace Rights' 'complaints in Relation to Employment' 'redundancy' 'restructure' 'statutory Presumption Under S 361']

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

Industrial Law Application Alleging Adverse Action for Exercise of Workplace Rights Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sixth complaint was a complaint in relation to Mr Rowland's employment under s 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)." 'Whether the decision to restructure the Cardiothoracic Unit constituted adverse action under s 342(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether the non-selection of Mr Rowland for a position in the restructured Unit constituted adverse action under s 342(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether any adverse action was taken because Mr Rowland exercised workplace rights by making complaints.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sixth complaint was not a complaint in relation to Mr Rowland's employment because it was essentially a complaint about Professor Esmore's clinical judgment and competence rather than how Professor Esmore related to Mr Rowland in his employment. The restructure and non-selection were adverse action, and termination was adverse action, but Alfred Health discharged its onus under s 361 by cogent and credible evidence that Mr Rowland's complaints were not a substantial and operative factor in the restructure, non-selection, or redundancy; the restructure was driven by dysfunction in the Unit and the selection panel rejected Mr Rowland because of his interview performance, attitude to the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']