The Industrial Magistrates Court of Western Australia (Court) has dismissed a claim brought by a teacher employed by the Department of Education (the claimant), who alleged he was subjected to adverse treatment after making complaints about the principal of a remote school where he had been working.

The claimant was employed by the Department of Education as a permanent teacher and had worked at several remote schools as part of the Department’s Remote Teaching Service. In April and June 2024, the claimant made complaints about the conduct and management style of the school principal. The claimant alleged that after making those complaints, he missed out on teaching opportunities at two other remote schools, was placed on leave without pay (LWOP) for several weeks, had his leave entitlements “frozen”, and was later subjected to performance management. 

The claimant argued that these actions were taken in retaliation for his complaints and sought a range of remedies, including compensation for unpaid salary amounting to $15,615, re-crediting of personal and long service leave entitlements that would have accrued but for being on LWOP, and an additional six months of paid leave. 

The respondents accepted that the claimant had made employment-related complaints but denied that any detrimental action had been taken because of those complaints. Accordingly, the Court was required to determine whether the actions relied upon by the claimant amounted to “damaging action” under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), and if so, whether there was a causal connection between those actions and the complaints he had made.

In relation to the alleged job opportunities lost at two remote schools, the Court found that, with respect to the first school, the claimant had expressed an interest in a position but had never been offered one. The evidence showed that the principal decided not to pursue the claimant’s application after speaking with departmental staff and the claimant’s current principal regarding concerns about his performance and suitability. The Court accepted that the decision-maker was unaware of the claimant’s complaints and was motivated solely by information concerning the claimant’s teaching performance and conduct.

The Court reached a similar conclusion regarding the second remote school. Although the principal initially indicated that a position would be available, the offer was later withdrawn after it became apparent that the proper recruitment process, including consultation with the local school council, had not been followed. The Court accepted evidence that the principal did not know about the claimant’s complaints, did not know the claimant’s current principal, and only withdrew the offer because the required recruitment procedures had not been followed.

In relation to the claimant’s placement on LWOP between October and November 2024, the Court accepted that: 
1)    the claimant had completed his remote teaching placement, had exhausted his remote service leave, and remained without a new placement making the claimant an “unattached teacher”; 
2)    the Department had a practice of placing unattached teachers on LWOP to prevent overpayment while redeployment arrangements were being finalised (LWOP procedure); 
3)    the department’s LWOP procedure was the reason the claimant was placed on LWOP (and why his leave accruals temporarily ceased accruing), rather than the claimant’s complaints.

The claimant also alleged that he had been placed on performance management because of his complaints. However, the Court found there was insufficient evidence to establish that any performance management process constituted damaging action or that the current principal had any involvement in it. 

While the Court accepted that some of the matters raised by the claimant, such as the withdrawal of an employment offer at the second school and the placement on LWOP, were capable of constituting damaging action, it found that none of the actions raised by the claimant occurred because he had made complaints about his current principal. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

The full decision can be read here.