the Applicant v Sydney Trains
Citation: [2021] FCA 251
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed as a Transport Officer by Sydney Trains from 28 August 2013 until 14 August 2017. He was a member and officer of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU). Between mid-2016 and July 2017, the Applicant engaged in numerous disputes with management including attempts to procure a vote of no confidence in a manager, pursuing disputes through the enterprise agreement dispute resolution procedure, initiating stop bullying proceedings, and making various complaints and inquiries. On 24 July 2017 he was sent a show cause letter. On 14 August 2017 he was dismissed.
What was decided
The court dismissed the Applicant's application alleging adverse action or breach of the enterprise agreement. The court found that although the Applicant had exercised various workplace rights, the evidence of the decision-makers—particularly the reasons given in the show cause letter—was reliable and credible. the Respondents proved the dismissal was for legitimate performance and conduct reasons including failure to maintain professional relationships and inability to accept feedback, not because the Applicant exercised workplace rights.
What it means for employers
Employers can dismiss employees for performance and conduct issues such as poor workplace relationships and inability to accept direction, even if the employee has engaged in union activities or pursued disputes. The employer's reasons must be clearly articulated and supported by credible evidence.
What it means for employees
Union activism and pursuing disputes through proper channels does not automatically protect you from dismissal for performance or conduct issues. Employers must show the adverse action was taken for the alleged conduct reasons; vague allegations are not sufficient.
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/2021/2021fca0251Want 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 →