Solicitor report · Privileged and confidential · Draft for review
Taylor v Northbank Freight Pty Ltd
| Ref | LU-2026-0417 |
| Firm | Example Partner Lawyers |
| Prepared | 9 Nov 2026, 06:40 |
| Status | Awaiting solicitor sign-off |
Conflict check: Clear against Northbank Freight Pty Ltd, Dean Price. Run 8 Nov 2026, 22:14.
1. Summary and recommendation
Client was a warehouse shift supervisor, about 4 years 9 months' service, $78,000 base, covered by the Storage Services and Wholesale Award 2020. On 14 Oct 2026 she emailed payroll and her manager asking why weekend overtime had been paid at ordinary time since July. She was dismissed on 28 Oct 2026, said to be redundancy, with no prior consultation. The same role title was advertised on Seek on 5 Nov 2026.
Recommend: lodge a general protections dismissal application (s 365) before 18 Nov, alleging adverse action because of the exercise of a workplace right (s 340(1)(a), s 341(1)(c)(ii)). Run the overtime underpayment separately under s 545, small claims if the figure stays modest. Elect against unfair dismissal per s 725. Reasons at section 7.
2. Chronology
Every entry links to its source. D = document, V = voice note (timestamp), I = intake interview.
| Date | Event | Source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Feb 2022 | Commenced as warehouse operator, Laverton North | D-01 p1 | Documented |
| Jul 2024 | Promoted to shift supervisor | D-02, I 04:20 | Documented |
| Jul to Oct 2026 | Weekend overtime paid at ordinary rate on payslips | I 07:45 | Client only. Payslips requested |
| 14 Oct 2026 | Email to payroll, cc Dean Price, asking why overtime not paid at the award rate | D-04 | Documented |
| 16 Oct 2026 | Team meeting: Price says people who complain about pay "can find another job" | V-01 03:12 | Client account. Possible witness: Priya (surname to confirm) |
| 28 Oct 2026 | Termination meeting. Told role redundant due to "restructure". Effective same day. 4 weeks in lieu plus redundancy pay | D-07, V-02 00:40 | Documented |
| 28 Oct 2026 | No consultation before decision. No redeployment discussed | I 12:10 | Client account |
| 5 Nov 2026 | Seek ad: "Warehouse Shift Supervisor, Laverton North". Duties match client's position description | D-09, D-03 | Documented |
Conflict between sources: intake says overtime short-paid "since winter"; V-01 says "since the July pay run". Treat as July 2026 pending payslips.
3. Issues identified
| Cause of action | Forum | View |
|---|---|---|
| General protections, dismissal. Adverse action for exercising a workplace right, ss 340, 341(1)(c)(ii) | FWC conference (s 368), then FCA or FCFCOA | Primary. Strong |
| Unfair dismissal, ss 385, 394. Redundancy defence likely fails under s 389(1)(a) given the Seek ad | FWC | Viable. Capped. Excluded if GP elected (s 725) |
| Underpayment of overtime under the award, s 545 | FCFCOA small claims | Run alongside. Quantum pending payslips |
| Consultation term breach under the award's major change clause | Folds into GP and UD as context | Supporting point only |
4. Elements: general protections dismissal
| Element | Evidence | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Client had or exercised a workplace right: a complaint or inquiry she is able to make in relation to her employment, s 341(1)(c)(ii) | Email D-04 asks about overtime under the award. Source of entitlement is the award, which meets the test in Whelan | Proven |
| Employer took adverse action: dismissal, s 342(1) item 1(a) | Termination letter D-07 | Proven |
| Action taken because of the workplace right, s 340(1)(a) | Presumed under s 361 unless employer proves otherwise. Timing (14 days), Price's remark (V-01), Seek ad (D-09) undercut the redundancy reason | Arguable, favourable |
| Decision-maker's evidence of reasons (Barclay) | Unknown who made the decision. If Price, the remark is damaging. If a more senior manager, need to test what they knew | Missing |
5. Authorities
Each citation matched against the source before inclusion.
| Authority | Proposition | Check |
|---|---|---|
| Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 341, 342, 361, 365, 366, 368, 370, 545, 570, 725 | Cause of action, reverse onus, time limit, conference, certificate then 14 days to file in court, remedies, costs, multiple actions | Verified |
| Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE v Barclay [2012] HCA 32; (2012) 248 CLR 500 | The s 361 inquiry focuses on the actual reasons of the decision-maker. Credible evidence of a lawful reason can discharge the onus | Verified |
| Cigarette & Gift Warehouse Pty Ltd v Whelan [2019] FCAFC 16; (2019) 268 FCR 46 | A complaint or inquiry under s 341(1)(c)(ii) must be founded on a source of entitlement, such as an award or contract | Verified |
| Ulan Coal Mines Ltd v Honeysett [2010] FWAFB 7578; (2010) 199 IR 363 | Genuine redundancy and redeployment under s 389. Relevant if UD route taken | Verified |
| Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 | Meaning of harsh, unjust or unreasonable. UD route only | Verified |
6. The other side's best case
- A senior manager with no knowledge of the 14 Oct email decided the restructure before it was sent. If there is a dated board paper or budget, the s 361 onus could be discharged (Barclay).
- The Seek role differs: a different shift pattern or a higher grade. They'll say it isn't the same job.
- Price denies the 16 Oct remark. Without Priya it's word against word.
- Client accepted redundancy pay without protest. Weak point, but they'll run it.
7. Prospects, quantum and forum
| GP dismissal (recommended) | Unfair dismissal | |
|---|---|---|
| Onus | On employer, s 361 | On applicant |
| Liability prospects | 60 to 70% | 65 to 75% |
| Compensation limit | None. Economic loss plus non-economic loss, s 545 | 26 weeks' pay: $39,000 (below the $95,050 cap), s 392 |
| Economic loss | Weekly pay $1,500. Assumed 12 to 26 weeks to re-employ less 4 weeks paid in lieu: $12,000 to $33,000 | |
| Settlement range | $15,000 to $35,000 | $10,000 to $25,000 |
| Adverse costs | Low. Only if vexatious or unreasonable, s 570 | Low. s 611 |
| Time and cost | Longer if it goes to court | Faster, cheaper |
GP preferred for the reverse onus and uncapped remedy. Facts suit it. Leverage at the s 368 conference is better than under UD. Underpayment: early estimate $3,000 to $5,000 from client's account. Confirm against payslips and the award's overtime clause before quoting.
8. Evidence to get
| Item | Why | From |
|---|---|---|
| Payslips Jan 2026 to final pay | Underpayment quantum. Corroborates the timing of the change | Client (requested) |
| Statement from Priya | Corroborates the 16 Oct remark | Client to introduce |
| Full Seek ad and position description | Same role. Defeats s 389(1)(a) | Archived D-09. PD held D-03 |
| Identity of decision-maker, restructure papers | Barclay inquiry | Employer, at conference or via discovery |
| Job search log | Mitigation | Client (ongoing) |
9. Costs estimate and funding
At the firm's rates. Excludes GST.
| Stage | Own costs | Disbursements | Decision point |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. File, s 365 application, letter to employer | $1,500 to $2,500 | $92.70 filing fee | Lodge by 18 Nov |
| 2. s 368 conference | $2,500 to $4,000 | Nil | Settle or take certificate |
| 3. Court filing to mediation | $12,000 to $18,000 | $1,500 to $3,000 | File within 14 days of certificate, s 370 |
| 4. Hearing | $25,000 to $40,000 | $5,000 to $10,000 (counsel) | Review prospects first |
Funding call: conditional costs agreement (no win no fee). Expected recovery at stage 2 comfortably covers stages 1 and 2. Adverse costs exposure low under s 570, so no ATE insurance needed. Reassess before stage 3. LawyerUp Funding available if the matter goes to hearing.
10. Roadmap
11. Drafts ready for review
Prepared by LawyerUp for review by a practising solicitor of Example Partner Lawyers. Not advice until approved. Thresholds and fees current as at 9 Nov 2026.