RPS AAP Consulting Pty Ltd v Lamb [2023] FCA 1310

RPS AAP Consulting Pty Ltd v Lamb [2023] FCA 1310

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge's findings that the adverse action (demotion/constructive dismissal) was at least partly because Ms Lamb made a workplace complaint were open on the evidence, and RPS failed to positively prove the absence of a prohibited reason. The employment contract did not permit demotion to a position of lesser status without mutual consent, and the judge was right to conclude the action was adverse for the purposes of the Fair Work Act. The reverse onus was not discharged by RPS.

Parties
Appellant: RPS AAP Consulting Pty Ltd; Respondent: Siobhan Lamb
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Action, General Protections, Constructive Dismissal, Workplace Rights, Demotion, Performance Management, Workplace Complaints
Industrial Law Employment Law Adverse Action General Protections Constructive Dismissal Workplace Rights Demotion Performance Management +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 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RPS AAP Consulting Pty Ltd

Appellant

Siobhan Lamb

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in finding adverse action based on the subjective views of the employee
  2. 2 Whether the reasons were inadequate regarding demotion and constructive dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the prohibited reason included the making of a workplace complaint

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge's findings that the adverse action (demotion/constructive dismissal) was at least partly because Ms Lamb made a workplace complaint were open on the evidence, and RPS failed to positively prove the absence of a prohibited reason. The employment contract did not permit demotion to a position of lesser status without mutual consent, and the judge was right to conclude the action was adverse for the purposes of the Fair Work Act. The reverse onus was not discharged by RPS.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The matter be remitted to the primary judge to deal with the remaining matters relating to penalty and compensation.