Log in or become a subscriber

In a general protections case that identified 188 workplace complaints or enquiries, an employee failed to specify which "particular" prohibited reasons led to his termination, the Federal Circuit Court has found.

Judge Nicholas Manousaridis rejected the employer's evidence about its dismissal reasons, but he said the fact the employee simply "left it to the Court" to determine which matters might have prompted his redundancy meant his claim had to fail.

The case involved an Autokat Recycling process plant supervisor who was notified on 28 October 2022 that his employment was terminated "by way of redundancy on the basis of insolvency".

In adverse action proceedings the employee claimed, among other things, that the employer had dismissed him because he exercised workplace rights, and its sole director was knowingly involved...