News & Events

Dissent judgment opens the door to High Court increasing employee access to adverse action

Submitted By Firm: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Contact(s): John Tuck


By Simon Billing (Partner) & Jessica Digby (Associate)

Date Published: 7/15/2015

Article Type:

Share This:

A persuasive dissenting judgment in the Full Federal Court has made further High Court consideration of the adverse action principles likely. This has the potential to result in a narrowing of the effect of some of the employer-friendly aspects of the High Court decision in Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41 (BHP).[1]


Alan McDermott, a maintenance fitter at Endeavour Coal’s West Cliff Colliery, was absent from work for 29.5 days between December 2007 and September 2010 on various forms of personal/carer’s leave. Almost all of these absences were in accordance with his entitlement to personal/carer’s leave under the applicable enterprise agreement. Despite this, in September 2010 he was moved from the ‘weekend day shift’ roster to the ordinary Monday to Friday roster (September adverse action).

In November 2010, Mr McDermott was returned to the weekend roster after signing an agreement regulating his use of personal/carer’s leave going forward, including a requirement that he provide a medical certificate on each future occasion.

In March 2011, Mr McDermott was again absent from work, and failed to provide a medical certificate. In April 2011, he was issued with a final written warning with respect to absenteeism, and again moved to the Monday-Friday roster (collectively, April adverse action).

The CFMEU then brought proceedings on his behalf under the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), arguing that Mr McDermott had been subjected to adverse action on the basis of his exercise of a workplace right (section 340(1)(a)(ii)).


Judge Cameron in the Federal Circuit Court[2] ruled that Endeavour had not contravened the general protections provisions. 

His Honour accepted the evidence of the (then) Engineering Manager that he had moved Mr McDermott from the weekend shift in September 2010 because Mr McDermott’s absences meant that his attendance was unpredictable, rather than because he had exercised a right to take personal/carer’s leave.

With respect to the April adverse action, His Honour held that Mr McDermott’s uncertified absence in March 2011 was not the exercise of a workplace right because Mr McDermott had failed to comply with the applicable enterprise agreement and section 107(3) the FW Act by not providing a medical certificate as required by Endeavour.

His Honour also accepted a successor Engineering Manager’s evidence that he had removed Mr McDermott from the weekend shift in April 2011 and issued him with a final written warning because he had been absent from work and failed to provide a certificate as required, and because this absence coincided with a rejected request for annual leave. He further accepted the Engineering Manager’s evidence that Mr McDermott’s previous absences on personal/carer’s leave were not a reason for the April adverse action.

The CFMEU appealed this decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.


Each of the three members of the Full Court handed down a separate opinion. A majority comprised of Justices Jessup and Perram dismissed the appeal. Justice Bromberg strongly dissented, and his opinion gives rise to a distinct possibility that the courts will be found to have gone too far when considering adverse action that has a temporal connection with industrial activity or the exercise of a workplace right.

Opinion of Justice Jessup

Justice Jessup found that the circumstances in this case could not be distinguished from the High Court majority reasoning in BHP and the earlier decision of Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE v Barclay [2012] HCA 32 (Barclay).[3]

In reaching this conclusion, his Honour summarised the joint opinion of Chief Justice French and Justice Kiefel in the BHP decision, and the separate reasoning of Gageler J in the same case, in terms of two propositions:

  • [the reasons] “reveal a distinction between the act done which is said to have amounted to participation in an industrial activity, on the one hand, and the thinking of the decision-maker with respect to that act, on the other hand;”[4] and
  • “what was necessary was that the actual reason of the decision-maker, in his or her own mind, be the employee’s participation in industrial activity”[5] (or other prohibited reason).

Here, the primary judge had been satisfied that the fact that Mr McDermott’s absences constituted personal/carer’s leave played no operative part in the Engineering Manager’s decision to move him from the weekend shift in September 2010. The September adverse action was taken because his absences on personal/carer’s leave made his attendance at work unpredictable to an unacceptable degree, rather than because he had taken personal/carer’s leave per se.

With respect to the April adverse action, Justice Jessup considered that it was open to the primary judge to find that Mr McDermott’s prior absences on personal/carer’s leave were not a reason for the warning or shift change, notwithstanding evidence that the prior absences were drawn to the Engineering Manager’s attention.

His Honour also determined that the reverse onus of proof did not require Endeavour “entirely to dissociate the adverse action taken by [the Engineering Manager] from those earlier absences”.[6]

Opinion of Justice Perram

Justice Perram expressed some sympathy for the CFMEU’s argument that the BHP decision did not apply where “the circumstances from which management’s motivations have been formed inevitably result from the exercise of a workplace right even if the employer’s motives do not explicitly concern workplace rights”.[7] However, he considered that acceptance of that line of reasoning was precluded by the decisions in BHP and Barclay.

His Honour further found that on the basis of the decisions in those cases, the issue to be determined was essentially a factual one, namely: which of the potential characterisations of the behaviour was the actual motive of the decision-maker. In that regard, he found no error in the primary judge’s finding that the reason for the September adverse action was Mr McDermott’s unreliable attendance record, rather than his exercise of his right to take personal/carer’s leave.

With respect to the April adverse action, Justice Perram also found no error in the primary judge’s finding that Mr McDermott’s prior attendance history was not a reason for the warning or further shift change.

Dissenting judgment of Justice Bromberg

Justice Bromberg found that the primary judge’s finding that the September adverse action was not taken because Mr McDermott had exercised his right to take personal/carer’s leave (because the Engineering Manager had been motivated by the fact and effect of the absences, rather than the character of those absences as personal/carer’s leave) was not consistent with Barclay or BHP

His Honour reasoned that Barclay and the joint opinion of Chief Justice French and Justice Kiefel in BHP stood for the propositions that:

  • a temporal connection between adverse action and engagement in a protected activity was not sufficient to attract the protection of Part 3-1 of the FW Act (although that connection may necessitate some consideration as to the true motivation of the decision-maker); and
  • the “requisite connection is between reason and protected activity, and not merely adverse action and protected activity”.[8]

Justice Bromberg further suggested that Justice Gageler in BHP may have gone beyond these principles when he suggested that ‘the requisite connection is not merely between reason and protected activity but between reason and the character of the protected activity’. In the present case, Justice Bromberg distinguished the September adverse action from the conduct which was at issue in BHP and Barclay. In both of those cases it had been found that, despite a temporal connection between adverse action and a protected activity, the protected activity was not a reason for the adverse action.

In the present case the primary judge had accepted that the September adverse action had been motivated by Mr McDermott’s absences on personal/carer’s leave. Justice Bromberg reasoned that this would necessarily have an effect on an employer’s workplace, and that Parliament presumably intended that that effect should not be regarded as an acceptable reason for subjecting an employee to adverse action. His Honour went on to caution that “to treat the exercise of a workplace right as devoid of its substance, content, or effect involves a restricted construction of s 340(1)(a)(ii) which, in my view, is not supported by the text of that provision nor the discernible Parliamentary intent which it content reveals”.[9] Justice Bromberg also found that “motivation by the practical effect of the exercise of a workplace right, in the knowledge that the effect is created by the exercise of a workplace right, is also capable of constituting a prohibited reason”.[10] He concluded that Endeavour had not established that Mr McDermott’s exercise of his right to take personal/carer’s leave was not a reason for the September adverse action.

With respect to the April adverse action, Justice Bromberg found that the decision-maker’s express admission in cross-examination that Mr McDermott’s previous absences had been “part of the reason” for the shift change, and a lack of evidence that the absences were not a substantial and operative reason, made the primary judge’s finding that the prior absences formed no part of the decision to take the adverse action glaringly improbable.


Earlier in July the CFMEU sought special leave from the High Court of Australia to appeal against the decision of the majority in this case. It is not clear when that application will be determined. If leave is granted, there is a real possibility that the High Court would uphold Justice Bromberg’s dissenting opinion in whole or in part.

In the meantime, the differences of opinion between the members of the Full Court of the Federal Court is likely to embolden unions to continue to test the boundaries of the general protection provisions, in particular where there is a temporal connection between adverse action and a protected attribute.

The on-going prospect of court challenges to managerial decision-making in reliance on the general protections provisions serves as a timely reminder for employers of the importance of ensuring that the reasons for any form of adverse action (including dismissal and performance management) are carefully documented and tested for lawfulness, and that decision-makers are clearly identified, particularly where the potentially prohibited reason arises from the same facts as the right that has been exercised by the employee.

[1] See article here.

[2] CFMEU v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd [2013] FCCA 473 (27 June 2013).

[3] See article here.

[4] CFMEU v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 76 (3 June 2015), [30].

[5] [2015] FCAFC 76, [32].

[6] [2015] FCAFC 76, [48].

[7] [2015] FCAFC 76, [54].

[8] [2015] FCAFC 76, [165].

[9] [2015] FCAFC 76, [173].

[10] [2015] FCAFC 76, [220].


Find a Member

View or print a complete ELA member list »

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

Stephen HirschfeldAs an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel


Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.


We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel