The Case

Mr Haylett was employed by Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd (HCC) as an equipment operator. Mr Haylett suffered a spinal injury at work and was re-trained as a drill rig operator. He worked in this role for 3 years.

HCC stood Mr Haylett down from performing his drill rig duties. The stand down action occurred:

• 4 days after Mr Haylett was awarded $637,000 in common law damages for his spinal injury; and
• 1 day after a medical assessment concluded he was unfit to undertake his current position as a drill rig operator.

Mr Haylett successfully challenged the medical assessment. HCC then obtained a further medical assessment. The doctor indicated that Mr Haylett was fit to work, with restrictions. However, the doctor changed his report after HCC intervened, saying that Mr Haylett was not fit to work due to those restrictions.

HCC ceased paying Mr Haylett’s wages as he had run out of personal leave and annual leave entitlements.

Mr Haylett again successfully challenged the second medical assessment. Nevertheless, HCC maintained its right to stand down Mr Haylett and to cease paying his wages.

Mr Haylett commenced proceedings in the Federal Court. Mr Haylett claimed HCC had breached:

• the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) by standing him down and refusing to pay him because he had commenced workers’ compensation proceedings; and
• the Hail Creek Agreement 2011, by ceasing to pay his wages.

The Verdict

The Federal Court held that HCC had breached:

• the general protections provisions of the FW Act; and
• the Hail Creek Agreement 2011.

The Court held that HCC were concerned by potential increases to its insurance premiums that would occur by Mr Haylett exercising his workplace right to commence workers’ compensation proceedings.

The Federal Court ordered HCC to pay:

• Mr Haylett $1,272,109 in damages for past and future loss of wages, plus interest; and
• a pecuniary penalty of $50,000 to the CFMEU.

HCC argued the damages awarded to Mr Haylett resulted in a double-dip compensation given Mr Haylett’s prior personal injury damages award.

The Federal Court indicated that the two awards had different purposes:

• the personal injury award was for lost earning capacity arising from the personal injury; and
• the general protections action award was for lost wages and future income caused by breaches of the FW Act.

Lessons For You

This case demonstrates that:

• an employee may be able to potentially receive multiple damages awards in relation to the same factual circumstances, provided those damages awards have different purposes; and
• significant pecuniary penalties can be imposed when the general protection provisions of the FW Act are breached.

Please note: Case law is reported as correct and current at time of publishing. Be aware that cases in lower courts may be appealed and decisions subsequently overturned.