Messenger v Commonwealth of Australia (Represented by the Department of Finance) [2022] FCA 677

Messenger v Commonwealth of Australia (Represented by the Department of Finance) [2022] FCA 677

The applicants failed to prove that they exercised workplace rights within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), as most of their alleged complaints were either not made, not related to their employment, or not grounded in any entitlement or right; only one complaint was found to be a workplace right, but the applicants failed to prove any adverse action was taken because of it. The applicants' dismissal was not for prohibited reasons but for serious misconduct, including the distribution of derisive correspondence about their employer and the orchestration and dissemination of damaging allegations. The court also found that the radio interview did not amount to unlawful coercion,...

Parties
Applicant: Robert Desmond Messenger; Applicant: Fern Ashleigh Messenger; First Respondent: The Commonwealth of Australia (Represented by the Department of Finance); Second Respondent: Jacquilene Louise Lambie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Action, Workplace Rights, Termination of Employment, Serious Misconduct, Coercion, Enterprise Agreement, Public Interest Disclosures
Industrial Law Employment Law Adverse Action Workplace Rights Termination of Employment Serious Misconduct Coercion Enterprise Agreement +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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Desmond Messenger

Applicant

Fern Ashleigh Messenger

Applicant

The Commonwealth of Australia (Represented by the Department of Finance)

First Respondent

Jacquilene Louise Lambie

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adverse action was taken against the applicants for exercising workplace rights under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were entitled to notice or payment in lieu thereof under the applicable enterprise agreement or were summarily dismissed for serious misconduct
  3. 3 Whether comments made in a public radio interview constituted coercion under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to prove that they exercised workplace rights within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), as most of their alleged complaints were either not made, not related to their employment, or not grounded in any entitlement or right; only one complaint was found to be a workplace right, but the applicants failed to prove any adverse action was taken because of it. The applicants' dismissal was not for prohibited reasons but for serious misconduct, including the distribution of derisive correspondence about their employer and the orchestration and dissemination of damaging allegations. The court also found that the radio interview did not amount to unlawful coercion,...

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • The application in TAD 28 of 2017 be dismissed.
  • The application in TAD 32 of 2017 be dismissed.