Skip to content

Employee Rights and Employer Responsibilities: Unpacking a Recent Dismissal Case

In the ever-evolving world of employment law, the case of Peter David Bostock v Austmont Pty Ltd is a compelling example of the intricacies involved when dealing with employee rights, employer responsibilities, and mental health in the workplace.

In May 2022, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruled in favor of a factory supervisor who was dismissed after a 33-year tenure with Austmont, a kitchen equipment manufacturer. He had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder following nine months of absence from work. The FWC ordered Austmont to pay a compensation of $470.72, as it failed to extend the necessary “courtesy” of informing him of the decision and providing a chance to respond.

The supervisor initially became unwell in 2021, following an investigation related to an anonymous complaint, from which he was eventually cleared. He was later diagnosed with mental illness during his pursuit of a workers’ compensation claim alleging workplace bullying, harassment, and ostracisation. His claim is currently under appeal.

Key Takeaways from the Case

  1. Valid Reason for Dismissal Does Not Preclude Proper Notification: Commissioner Alana Matheson emphasized that a valid reason for dismissal does not exempt the employer from their duty to notify the employee and offer them an opportunity to respond.
  2. Employee Communication is Crucial: Despite Austmont’s assertion that they expected no response from the supervisor due to previous non-responses related to the workers’ compensation claims, the FWC noted that an opportunity to respond should have still been provided. This highlights the significance of maintaining open communication lines with employees, regardless of circumstances.
  3. Acknowledgement of Long-Term Service: The commissioner underscored that the supervisor, given his long service of nearly 33 years, deserved the opportunity and courtesy to respond before being dismissed.
  4. Employers’ Responsibility Towards Employee Mental Health: The case brings to the fore the responsibilities employers bear towards their employees’ mental health. It also highlights the potential legal repercussions of ignoring or mishandling these responsibilities.

Implications for Employers and Employees

This case serves as a crucial reminder for employers to carefully consider their obligations towards employees, especially those suffering from mental health issues. It stresses the importance of adhering to due process and proper communication, regardless of the circumstances.

For employees, the case underscores the rights they have within the workplace, particularly in terms of communication and transparency from their employers. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of seeking legal recourse when they believe these rights have been infringed upon.

In conclusion, it’s essential for both employers and employees to understand the potential impacts and implications of mental health in the workplace. The Peter David Bostock v Austmont Pty Ltd case presents a valuable learning opportunity in this regard, shedding light on the responsibilities and rights of both parties within the context of the broader employment law landscape.

Call Frontline Employment Defenders Now so we can help you 1300 089 353 or visit

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *