the Applicant v Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd
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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. 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.
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.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.