Log in or become a subscriber

The reverse onus of proof in adverse action cases shouldn't be a "free kick" for employees to name numerous decision-makers without properly identifying their role in alleged contraventions, an employer has argued.

Allowing an employee to name so many individuals, on only a "speculative" basis, was at odds with the overarching purpose of the Federal Circuit Court, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology claimed in strike-out proceedings.

The case involved a professor who accused the employer and two colleagues of unlawful adverse action and enterprise agreement breaches.

The employer sought orders striking out certain paragraphs of his statement of claim, arguing they would likely cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceedings; and/or didn't disclose a reasonable cause of action.

It pointed out that the number of decision-makers in those pleadings ranged from three to 18, while the reasons he suggested underpinned the alleged adverse actions numbered up to 56...