Tucker v McKee
Citation: [2022] FCAFC 98
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
Tobias Tucker was employed at the State Revenue Office of Victoria. A female colleague complained of sexual harassment by Tucker, including inappropriate comments and unwanted Facebook friend requests. An investigation also found he had conducted unauthorised searches of customer records related to people connected to the complainant. The employer sent a show cause letter referring to a clause in the Victorian Public Service Enterprise Agreement 2016 requiring investigation into alleged misconduct.
What was decided
Tucker sued for defamation based on an email from a manager to senior officials describing the allegations. The respondents claimed the defamation case lacked federal jurisdiction. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed Tucker's appeal, finding that because the show cause letter and the allegations referenced an enterprise agreement made under the Fair Work Act, there was sufficient federal jurisdiction to hear the defamation claim.
What it means for employers
When employers refer to enterprise agreements or Fair Work Act requirements in communications about alleged misconduct, those communications may have a federal connection that affects jurisdiction for subsequent legal proceedings. Employers should ensure communications are factually accurate.
What it means for employees
Employees dismissed following misconduct investigations may have recourse to federal courts if the dismissal process involved an enterprise agreement, even in defamation proceedings.
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/full/2022/2022fcafc0098Want 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 →