At the centre of the case is the conduct of Theo Seremetidis,
Mr Seremetidis asserts that the reason for his dismissal was that he informed fellow employees it was within their rights to stop any work deemed "unsafe".
He gave this advice after
Mr Seremetidis was the employee Health and Safety representative and asserts that the position placed a duty of care on him to direct his colleagues to cease working on the aircraft that had arrived from
Mr Seremetidis gave his cease work directive in late January / early February of 2020, and his dismissal followed shortly thereafter on 7 February of that year.
At the time, little was known about Covid-19, except that it was highly contagious and making people very sick - some people were dying from the virus.
By
Unfortunately, the incident with Mr. Seremetidis isn't an isolated one. In fact, it is just one of many instances in which
Several charges of engaging in discriminatory conduct in the workplace for a prohibited reason have been brought against the company, each of which carry a maximum fine of 5,770 penalty units for a company - which is currently the equivalent of
This means the company's fines could be in the millions if the charges are proven.
If compensation is awarded to Mr Seremetidis,
In its defence,
It contends on that basis that it was not unsafe to work on the aircraft coming from
The airline has stated publicly that Mr Seremetidis was directed not to come to work while he was investigated for failing to comply with the company's "Standards of Conduct" policy, including attempting to incite unprotected industrial action.
It further claims Mr Seremetidis was made redundant as part of a decision to outsource ground handling, not for his direction to colleagues.
Transport Workers' Union National Secretary
"No other company in
"The standing down of Theo coincided with
"Over the last two years, we've seen that
This is certainly not the first allegation levelled against
The court found last year that
The employees included baggage handlers, ramp workers and cabin cleaners across airports in
Engaging in discriminatory conduct in the workplace for a prohibited reason is a criminal offence under section 104(1) of the
Section 105 of the Act stipulates that a person engages in discriminatory conduct if he or she:
- dismisses a worker,
- terminates a contract for services with a worker,
- puts a worker to his or her detriment in the engagement of the worker,
- alters the position of a worker to the worker's detriment,
- refuses or fails to offer to engage a prospective worker,
- treats a prospective worker less favourably than another prospective worker would be treated in offering terms of engagement,
- the person terminates a commercial arrangement with another person, or
- the person refuses or fails to enter into a commercial arrangement with another person.
Threatening or organising to do any of these things is included in the definition.
Section 106 of the Act provided a person engages in conduct for a prohibited reason if it is engaged in because the worker or prospective worker:
- is, has been or proposes to be a health and safety representative or a member of a health and safety committee,
- undertakes, has undertaken or proposes to undertake another role under the Act,
- exercises a power or performs a function or has exercised a power or performed a function or proposes to exercise a power or perform a function as a health and safety representative or as a member of a health and safety committee,
- exercises, has exercised or proposes to exercise a power under this Act or exercises, has exercised or proposes to exercise a power under the Act in a particular way,
- performs, has performed or proposes to perform a function under the Act or performs, has performed or proposes to perform a function under the Act in a particular way,
- refrains from, has refrained from or proposes to refrain from exercising a power or performing a function under the Act or refrains from, has refrained from or proposes to refrain from exercising a power or performing a function under the Act in a particular way,
- assists or has assisted or proposes to assist, or gives or has given or proposes to give any information to any person exercising a power or performing a function under the Act,
- is taking action, has taken action or proposes to take action to seek compliance by any person with any duty or obligation under the Act, or
- raises or has raised or proposes to raise an issue or concern about work health and safety with:
- the person conducting a business or undertaking,
- an inspector,
- a WHS entry permit holder,
- a health and safety representative,
- a member of a health and safety committee,
- another worker,
-
any other person
who has a duty under this Act in relation to the matter, - any other person exercising a power or performing a function under this Act,
- is involved in, has been involved in or proposes to be involved in resolving a work health and safety issue under the Act, or
- is taking action, has taken action or proposes to take action to seek compliance by any person with any duty or obligation under the Act.
Section 110 of the Act makes clear that in criminal proceedings brought under section 104, if the prosecution proves each of the elements (ingredients) of the offence, then it is presumed the reason alleged for the discriminatory conduct is presumed to be the dominant reason for that conduct unless the defendant proves otherwise on the balance of probabilities.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Ms
Sydney Criminal Lawyers
503/
Tel: 29261 8881
Fax: 29264 0880
E-mail: info@sydneycriminallawyers.com.au
URL: www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/
© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source