Regulski v Victoria (2015) FCA 206
Material Facts
Mr. Regulski was an employee for the Victorian Department of Justice as a compliance inspector. Wile employed, Mr. Regulski received a complaint that was made by one of his co-workers.
As a result, Mr. Regulski was asked to attend to his manager’s office. Mr. Regulski described that his manager made vile comments towards him, causing him to suffer psychological torment, where he was not able to return to his normal work. Mr. Regulski claimed that his mistreatment was influenced by his choice to not partake in business activities that he alleged were illegal. Furthermore, Mr. Regulski claimed that he was not given a return to work plan. A workcover claim was successfully lodged on the basis that the employer used adverse action. Therefore, Mr. Regulski sought damages.
Issues
- Whether the mistreatment of Mr. Regulski was as a result of him refusing to conduct certain …show more content…
Regulski more as one-sided and not a conversation, highlighting that the manager was not basing his anger on past events, and just on the initial complaint he was dealing with at that point in time.
Furthermore, the Judge found that a return to work plan was offered to Mr. Regulski multiple times, whereby he did not respond as a result of his own choice. The Judge did not find that the employer had breached his duties with regards to the return to work plan. This was as a result of Mr. Regulski’s certification that he was unfit to return to work.
Ultimately, the court did not rule in favor of Mr. Regulski, as they did not find inferences of adverse action by the employer for both issues.
Conclusion
It is important for the rights of employees to be preserved by legislation and the courts. Employees deciding to act within their rights, and responding to adverse action through submitting complaints is an individual right that stands at the core of
Material Facts
Mr. Regulski was an employee for the Victorian Department of Justice as a compliance inspector. Wile employed, Mr. Regulski received a complaint that was made by one of his co-workers.
As a result, Mr. Regulski was asked to attend to his manager’s office. Mr. Regulski described that his manager made vile comments towards him, causing him to suffer psychological torment, where he was not able to return to his normal work. Mr. Regulski claimed that his mistreatment was influenced by his choice to not partake in business activities that he alleged were illegal. Furthermore, Mr. Regulski claimed that he was not given a return to work plan. A workcover claim was successfully lodged on the basis that the employer used adverse action. Therefore, Mr. Regulski sought damages.
Issues
- Whether the mistreatment of Mr. Regulski was as a result of him refusing to conduct certain …show more content…
Regulski more as one-sided and not a conversation, highlighting that the manager was not basing his anger on past events, and just on the initial complaint he was dealing with at that point in time.
Furthermore, the Judge found that a return to work plan was offered to Mr. Regulski multiple times, whereby he did not respond as a result of his own choice. The Judge did not find that the employer had breached his duties with regards to the return to work plan. This was as a result of Mr. Regulski’s certification that he was unfit to return to work.
Ultimately, the court did not rule in favor of Mr. Regulski, as they did not find inferences of adverse action by the employer for both issues.
Conclusion
It is important for the rights of employees to be preserved by legislation and the courts. Employees deciding to act within their rights, and responding to adverse action through submitting complaints is an individual right that stands at the core of