Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Melbourne Precast Concrete Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2)
Citation: [2020] FCA 1215
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked as a precast concrete operator for Melbourne Precast Concrete Nominees Pty Ltd under an enterprise agreement. In March 2020, he was dismissed allegedly for redundancy following restructuring. the Applicant claimed the dismissal was not genuine redundancy and was actually adverse action taken because he raised occupational health and safety concerns and exercised his right to take personal leave when unfit for work.
What was decided
The court found Melbourne Precast contravened Fair Work Act sections 50, 340(1)(a), and 340(1)(b) by dismissing the Applicant because of his exercise of workplace rights (safety concerns and personal leave). The court ordered reinstatement to his former position with continuity of service maintained, compensation for lost wages of $23,631.15, and unpaid superannuation of $3,716.03. Penalty proceedings were reserved.
What it means for employers
Employers cannot dismiss employees for raising safety concerns or exercising statutory entitlements to personal leave. Redundancy decisions must not be pretextually based on workplace rights exercised. OHS representatives and safety-conscious employees receive statutory protection.
What it means for employees
Employees dismissed for raising safety issues or taking legitimate leave have strong legal protection. Reinstatement and compensation are available remedies. Documentation of safety concerns and leave requests is protective.
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/2020/2020fca1215Want 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 →