Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rowland v Alfred Health [2014] FCA 2 Citation: Rowland v Alfred Health [2014] FCA 2
Parties: MICHAEL ROWLAND v ALFRED HEALTH
File number: VID 1 of 2012
Judge: MARSHALL ACJ
Date of judgment: 15 January 2014
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – adverse action – exercise of a workplace right – making of complaints – restructure – redundancy – whether complaint "in relation to employment" – whether adverse action taken for a prohibited reason – direct evidence of decision-makers concerning their reasons for the adverse action cogent and credible – statutory presumption displaced – making of complaints not a "substantial and operative" factor in decision to take adverse action
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340(1), 341, 342, 361
Cases cited: Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 290 ALR 647 Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1
Date of hearing: 13, 14, 18, 19, 25, 26 March; 3, 4 April; 6, 11, 12 June; 13 September and 18 November 2013
Place: Melbourne
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 82
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Millar
Solicitor for the Applicant: Moray & Agnew
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Rinaldi with Ms A Forsyth
Solicitor for the Respondent: Hunt & Hunt
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY FAIR WORK DIVISION VID 1 of 2012
BETWEEN: MICHAEL ROWLAND
Applicant
AND: ALFRED HEALTH
Respondent
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate