the Applicant v Qantas Airways Ltd
At a glance
- 2
What happened
the Applicant and a co-worker were long-serving employees of Qantas Airways Limited. the Applicant worked from 1993 until dismissal in March 2009; the co-worker worked from 2000 until dismissal in March 2009. Both were union delegates for the Transport Workers Union. On 14 February 2009, employees in the ramp area at Melbourne Airport stopped work following a vote conducted in the Applicant's presence. the co-worker took a vote in the baggage room but baggage employees continued working. Qantas investigated and alleged the employees had organised and incited unlawful industrial action. Both applicants were dismissed.
What was decided
Justice Kenny dismissed the applicants' claims under s 792 of the Workplace Relations Act (now s 351 of the Fair Work Act). The court found Qantas had conducted a fair investigation and made findings substantiated by the evidence that both applicants had engaged in misconduct (organising industrial action, breaching directions from management). Qantas discharged the reverse onus imposed under s 809 of the Workplace Relations Act by proving the dismissal was for a legitimate reason (serious misconduct), not because the applicants were union delegates.
What it means for employers
An employer can lawfully terminate union delegates or representatives if there is substantiated serious misconduct. However, the employer must conduct a fair investigation, establish that the misconduct is proven, and ensure the termination decision is not motivated by the employee's union role. The reverse onus in the legislation requires the employer to discharge a significant burden of proof.
What it means for employees
Union delegates are not immune from dismissal for serious misconduct, but they have special protections. Employers must conduct thorough investigations before dismissing delegates. Delegates should obtain union advice if they face investigation or dismissal, as claims can allege discrimination on grounds of union activity despite stated misconduct reasons.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.