Boyd v Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FCA 1012
What happened
The Applicant, a WHS & QA Compliance Manager/Officer, sued Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), alleging adverse action under s 340 of the Fair Work Act. She claimed her employment termination was due to exercising workplace rights between August 2024 and January 15, 2025. Roadworx terminated the Applicant’s employment on January 16, 2025, with pay in lieu of notice, and again on January 21, 2025, for alleged misconduct. The primary judge found the Applicant had exercised a workplace right and proposed to exercise another, but the termination wasn't due to those actions.
What was decided
The Full Federal Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the earlier decision. The court upheld the primary judge’s findings that Roadworx did not terminate the Applicant’s employment because she exercised or proposed to exercise workplace rights. The court found no miscarriage of fact-finding by the primary judge and affirmed that Roadworx had discharged its onus under s 361 of the Fair Work Act, meaning they proved her termination wasn't related to her exercising workplace rights. An email the Applicant sent to SafeWork NSW was considered but not a factor in the decision.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure that employment decisions are demonstrably unrelated to an employee’s exercise or proposed exercise of workplace rights. Thorough documentation and clear reasoning behind termination decisions are crucial to defend against claims under s 340 of the Fair Work Act. It is important to be aware of what constitutes a 'workplace right' and how actions might be perceived as adverse action.
What it means for employees
Employees who believe their employment was terminated due to exercising workplace rights should consider pursuing legal action under s 340 of the Fair Work Act. However, it is important to understand that employers have an onus of proving that the termination wasn't related to those actions. The court will scrutinise the reasons for termination and assess whether procedural fairness was afforded.
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/2026/2026fca1012Want 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 →