the Applicant v Flinders University of South Australia
Citation: [2022] FCA 1361
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed as a Senior Research Fellow at Flinders University from late 2016 to early 2017 under a three-month probationary contract. During her employment, the university made various demands and requirements of her work, some of which she opposed. She alleged she had exercised 24 workplace rights and that the university had taken 19 adverse actions against her. At the end of the probationary period, the university declined to continue her employment. She sought relief claiming the university contravened the Fair Work Act.
What was decided
the primary judge dismissed the Applicant's application for relief. the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal to the Federal Court, but this application was refused. The court found that during probation, the university retained discretion to end employment without demonstrating a breach by the employee. The university's evidence that the Applicant was unable to work effectively with her supervisor and had created workplace tension was accepted by the primary judge. The proposed appeal had insufficient merit.
What it means for employers
During a probationary period, employers retain broad discretion to end employment if the relationship is not working out, without the usual constraints that apply after probation ends. However, even during probation, conduct cannot be motivated by the employee exercising genuine workplace rights.
What it means for employees
Employment during probation is less secure. Employers can more readily terminate probationary employees if they consider the fit unsatisfactory, though they cannot do so solely because the employee has exercised a workplace right.
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/2022/2022fca1361Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. 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.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
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.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
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