Friday, 17 April 2015 12:45pm
The Federal Court has rejected an injured worker's claim that his employer took adverse action against him by exposing him to a manager's abusive "dressing down" and failing to offer him a return-to-work (RTW) plan.
Justice Chris Jessup found the manager's "vehement and vitriolic" tirade had nothing to do with the worker exercising his workplace right to refuse to perform a task.
The Court heard that in March 2011, the Victorian Department of Justice worker – a compliance inspector – was called into the manager's office to discuss a complaint made against the worker by another employee.
Justice Jessup found the manager was "in such a state of anger" that he accidentally slammed his office door shut on the worker's foot, and subjected the worker to such a severe "dressing down" that he suffered a psychological injury and was "in no condition to return to his normal work".
He found the manager made comments such as:
The worker told the Court that the manager also threatened to ensure he never saw his daughter again by rostering him on every weekend he was meant to see her.
He successfully claimed workers' compensation, before claiming the Department and his subsequent employer, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, breached the Fair Work Act in taking adverse action against him.
He told the Court the "real reason" the manager abused him was because he exercised a workplace right to refuse to participate in a night club inspection in October 2010 because he believed the tactics being used by the Department were illegal.
He also argued the Department and the Commission "failed to provide him with any suitable return-to-work plan" because he complained about the manager's bullying behaviour.
But Justice Jessup found the Department consulted with the worker on his return to work on at least three occasions.
He said the worker's claim about the RTW plan was "not only disproved but quite far-fetched".
He also found the Commission couldn't be accused of failing to plan the worker's return to work because he was continuously certified as unfit for all duties after moving to the Commission.
Justice Jessup added that there was "nothing in [the manager's] angry reaction which had any plausible connection" to the worker's refusal to participate in the night club inspection five months earlier.
Regulski v State of Victoria [2015] FCA 206 (13 March 2015)