the Applicant v Telstra Corporation Limited
Citation: [2018] FCA 1994
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
The Applicant was employed by Telstra Corporation as an Applications Manager in the Operations Support Services Team from August 2008. He worked under a General Manager. In December 2014, the Applicant raised concerns with the General Manager about an issue. In July 2016, he made a formal complaint against the General Manager alleging bullying, isolation, and discrimination. He also requested flexible working arrangements to attend to his daughter's medical needs and his own mental health. In June 2017, Telstra initiated a company-wide restructure called 'Project Rosie' aimed at reducing costs. The Applicant was selected for redundancy and received a low performance rating in July 2017. He alleges the General Manager arranged his dismissal as revenge.
What was decided
The court found no contravention of section 340 (adverse action because of workplace rights). The evidence did not establish that adverse action was taken because the Applicant exercised his right to make complaints or request flexible work. The court found the redundancy was genuine, part of a legitimate cost-cutting restructure affecting 22 per cent of the team. The low performance ratings were justified by documented performance issues. The Applicant's allegations of bullying and harassment were not substantiated. The application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers can defend adverse action claims by demonstrating legitimate, documented business reasons for decisions. Genuine redundancy based on cost reduction is a valid defence even if an employee has recently made complaints. Performance ratings must be properly documented and justified.
What it means for employees
Making workplace complaints is protected, but complaints alone do not prevent employers from making genuine redundancy decisions. Temporal proximity between a complaint and adverse action does not automatically establish causation; the employer's actual reasons matter.
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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2018/2018fca1994Want 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.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →