the Applicant v Australian Postal Corporation (No 2)
Citation: [2019] FCA 2192
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked for Australian Postal Corporation (APC). He alleged that APC and its former Managing Director took adverse action against him, including his removal from a position and cancellation of a project, due to his workplace rights. He also claimed the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) made threats intended to coerce APC. He further alleged breaches of his employment contract. The case involved discussions about what constitutes a 'threat' under Fair Work Act sections 348 and 355, the meaning of 'intent to coerce', and whether union representative actions influenced APC’s decisions.
What was decided
The Federal Court discussed various legal principles related to adverse action, threats, intent to coerce, and contractual breaches. The court addressed issues regarding the applicability of section 361(1) of the Fair Work Act and the standard of proof required for contraventions. It also considered whether APC and the Managing Director were accessiorily liable. The Court ordered further steps including outlining witness evidence dealing with the Applicant's earnings and employment circumstances post-November 2018, or an agreed statement of facts.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware of the legal definition of 'threat' and 'intent to coerce' under the Fair Work Act. They must ensure actions taken against employees are not influenced by unlawful means, including union pressure. Employers need to carefully consider contractual obligations when reassigning or terminating employee positions.
What it means for employees
Employees who believe they have experienced adverse action due to exercising workplace rights should understand the legal framework and potential remedies available. Employees experiencing issues with their employer should document all relevant events and seek advice from a union or legal professional.
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/2019/2019fca2192Want 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 →