Workplace Watch – 10 October 2025: Penalties against ABC for unlawful dismissal of Antoinette Lattouf, FWC re ‘unfair deactivation’, significant WHS penalty for Kelloggs
In this edition we cover the Federal Court’s penalties decision in the much-publicised unlawful termination claim brought against the ABC by Antoinette Lattouf, a significant decision from a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission relating to the Commission’s jurisdiction in the developing ‘unfair deactivation’ space, and a substantial penalty ordered against Kellogg’s for its failure to uphold its workplace safety obligations. Other developments include the release of the National Construction Industry Forum’s Blueprint for the Future, Victoria’s implementation of new Psychosocial Health Regulations and Compliance Code and a foreshadowing of further class actions to be brought by Adero following its success in the recent Woolworths and Coles salaried underpayment cases.
Penalties imposed against ABC for unlawful dismissal of Antoinette Lattouf
Following his earlier judgement in June 2025, Justice Rangaiah has imposed $150,000 in penalties against the ABC for its contraventions of sections 50 and 772 of the Fair Work Act 2009, relating to its dismissal of journalist Antoinette Lattouf.
The established contraventions involved the ABC breaching the applicable enterprise agreement and terminating the employment of Ms Lattouf for reason of her political opinion – being her opposition to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.
Ultimately, his Honour made orders for four separate penalties – involving four individual breaches of the terms of the Enterprise Agreement and a singular breach of section 772, in respect of the unlawful termination and surrounding processes.
In making the orders, Justice Rangiah had regard to both the ABC’s conduct, and the impacts upon Ms Latouf, which were found to be “very significant”. Moreover, his Honour found that the ABC’s conduct ignored its ‘important statutory obligation of maintaining its independence and integrity [and]…let down the Australian public badly when it abjectly surrendered the rights of its employee Ms Lattouf to appease a lobby group”.
Read the decision here
Mohammad Shareef Hotak v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd (UDE2025/53):
A Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission has found that Uber’s reactivation of a driver’s account did not preclude the platform worker from continuing his claim in respect of the initial deactivation.
The driver was initially deactivated following an incident with passengers during which he claimed to have been assaulted, after which he immediately reported the incident to the police. Following the driver’s commencement of unfair deactivation proceedings Uber voluntarily reactivated the Applicant’s access to the platform and therefore claimed in the proceedings that the Commission could not find that he had been “deactivated” within the meaning of s536LF(a) of the Act.
The Full Bench rejected that position, finding that such a construction would enable the platform to “reactivate the worker at any time prior to the Commission’s decision, thereby…extinguishing the Commission’s jurisdiction and depriving the worker of any entitlement to a remedial order”.
Accordingly, the Commission found that the Applicant had been unfairly deactivated and made orders for reinstatement of his access to the platform on the basis that he had performed work between the date of his suspension and his reactivation, and that he be engaged on the same terms and conditions as prior to his unfair deactivation.
Read the full decision here.
Significant WHS fine for employer failing to ensure safety of contractor
The NSW Industrial Court has fined Kellogg Australia following a workplace incident involving two workers of a specialist engineering contractor engaged to perform works who fell four metres from an elevated work platform when a truck reversed into a loading dock.
Both workers sustained serious injuries, including significant fractures requiring surgery. Kellogg appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to an offence that as a person who had a work health and safety duty pursuant to s.19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) it failed to comply with that duty and thereby exposed the employees to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to s.32 of the WHS Act.
Justice Paingakulam noted that despite Kellogg having extensive safe systems of work in place, the truck driver was able to pass security, complete the security check, operate Kellogg’s roller door and back his truck into the dock, all without being alerted the contractor’s workers performing works on the elevated work platform. She also noted that Kellogg’s site risk register included a range of procedures such as pre-work safety planning and consultation with all impacted parties however, “none of which were implemented on the day of the incident“.
Kellogg plead guilty and submitted to the Court that the seriousness of the offence was low because it should have been able to rely on the highly experienced engineering contractor to protect its own workers. Whilst the Court accepted that there were failings by the contractor that contributed to the risk of an incident occurring, Kellogg as the occupier and controller of the workplace failed to meet its own statutory safety duties, in particular the implementation of an effective traffic management plan.
The Court considered it appropriate to fine Kellogg $680,000, however this was discounted by 25% to $510,000 to reflect Kellogg’s early guilty plea.
Read the decision here.
National construction industry forum releases Blueprint for the Future
The National Construction Industry Forum (NCIF) has formally endorsed its Blueprint for the Future, developing reforms across key areas including workplace relations, skills and training, safety, productivity, diversity, gender equity and industry culture.
One of the recommendations from the Blueprint is a Joint Construction Industry Charter which sets out clear shared goals and expectations for a safe buildings and construction industry, as well as behaviour expectations, rules of engagement and dispute resolution process amongst all industry participants. The Blueprint also proposes enhanced dispute resolution mechanisms, potentially within the Fair Work Commission, to encourage cooperative bargaining and collaborative outcomes with the implementation and review of the Blueprint.
Furthermore, the Blueprint recommends regulators, such as the Fair Work Ombudsman consider commencing a national investigation into specific allegations of sex discrimination and sexual harassment more broadly in the construction industry.
Some of the other recommendations include mandatory safe and respectful workplace training, ensuring qualifications for apprenticeships cover the skills required to support safe and respectful workplace and addressing an over reliance on labour hire in the industry.
From here, the NCIF will continue to connect with relevant stakeholders and engage with industry participants to build support for the blueprint and its implementation.
Read the Blueprint for the Future here.
New Victorian Psychosocial Health Regulations and Compliance Code
Discussions regarding Victoria introducing Occupational Health and Safety Regulations specifically focusing on psychosocial hazards has been proposed since 2021.
The Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025 (Regulations) come into effect from 1 December 2025.
The Regulations require employers to, so far as is reasonably practicable, identify psychosocial hazards and once identified eliminate any risk associated with a psychosocial hazard, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so.
If it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate a risk associated with a psychosocial hazard the employer must reduce the risk to far as is reasonably practicable by altering the management of work, the plant, the systems of work, the work design or the workplace environment.
Importantly, only if it is not reasonably practicable to use any of the above control measures, employers can then address the risk by exclusively using information, instruction or training to reduce the risk. Similarly, if employers use a combination of the control measures set out above with information, instruction or training, the latter must not be the predominant control measure used.
WorkSafe Victoria has also released a Compliance Code on Psychological Health which summarises employer’s obligations under the Regulations.
Interestingly, whilst the Regulations do not expressly require employers to develop psychosocial hazard prevention plans, there is an obligation for employers to review and, if necessary, revise any measures implemented to control risks associated with psychosocial hazards. The Compliance Code also specifically mentions record-keeping obligations with respect to the risk management process and consultation for all psychosocial hazards and suggests the use of a psychosocial hazard prevention plan as a method of such recording.
The Regulations can be accessed here and the Code here.
Full Bench finds casual employee was dismissed following employer’s attempt to “pause” employment relationship
A Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission has granted permission to appeal and quashed an earlier decision of Commissioner Sloan, which found that a long-term casual employee had not been dismissed from his employment.
The dismissed employee had worked with the Respondent for over two decades under various arrangements, the most recent of which was a casual employment contract, entered into by the parties in January 2024.
While the existence of that contract and the employment relationship were not disputed, the Full Bench did acknowledge some difficulty in reconciling the terms of the contract with the actual nature of the employee’s casual engagements, and relatedly, the question of whether a dismissal had occurred in circumstances where the Respondent had acted to “pause” the relationship for a particular period during which the employee would usually have worked.
In dealing with those apparent inconsistencies, however, the Full Bench stated that “the assertion that there is a separate contract for each engagement is not inconsistent with the existence of an umbrella contract providing for ongoing obligations associated with a continuing employment relationship”.
Accordingly, it found that the Respondent’s decision to “pause” the relationship amounted to a dismissal at the employer’s initiative, and, that Commissioner Sloan had erred in requiring that the Applicant establish the existence of a “enforceable contract” relating to the period upcoming work, and by taking into account irrelevant considerations such as the Respondent’s subjective intentions and the “reasonableness” of its actions.
Read the full decision here
Adero flags further annualised salary class actions
The fallout from Justice Perram’s decision in the much-publicised Coles and Woolworths salaried underpayment cases appears set to continue, following Adero’s foreshadowing of further representative actions in respect of potentially unlawful annualised salary arrangements.
While it remains to be seen whether Justice Perram’s decision will be appealed, Adero has flagged potential proceedings against both the Super Retail Group (SRG) and the Seven Network in respect of those companies’ annual salary arrangements.
The FWO had previously brought an action against SRG regarding the salaried underpayments (which the company self-reported), however, that case was adjourned pending the outcome of the Coles and Woolworths matter. Although no proceedings have yet been commenced against the Seven Network, Adero has outlined that the concerns relate to alleged underpayments, misclassification of roles, unpaid breaks and unpaid overtime.
More information on Adero’s prospective claims against SRG and Seven Network can be found here and here.
Want the KHQ Workplace Watch delivered straight to your inbox? Click here to subscribe.