Sacked after complaining about a manager, he won his own case

What happened

Christopher Parsons started with Serco in 2005. From 2016 he was its Learning and Development Lead at Varsity Lakes on the Gold Coast, overseeing the trainers who prepared staff for Serco's contract with the Australian Taxation Office.

In 2021 he made a run of complaints. In May he lodged a formal bullying complaint about his general manager, mostly about pressure to put more people in training rooms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Serco found it unsubstantiated. In August he took the same manager to the Fair Work Commission.

Then a trainer in his team complained about him. While she was on leave he had texted her calling her "my ray of sunshine" and asking if she was counting the days before she returned to "hell's kitchen". She also complained about a phone call and another message in which he drew her into his conflict with the general manager. Serco's Operations Director gave him a written warning in October 2021 and made him ineligible for any Serco vacancy for six months. Later that month Mr Parsons lodged a formal complaint about how the Operations Director had run that investigation, alleging a lack of procedural fairness and a conflict of interest. That complaint was also found unsubstantiated.

The second complaint and the dismissal

In November 2021 the trainer complained again, saying that since returning to work she had not been invited to catch-ups and felt kept in the dark. HR asked her for specific examples. She did not reply, nobody followed up, and she was never interviewed.

Mr Parsons denied the allegations at a meeting in February 2022 and produced emails and details of calls with her. In March the Operations Director found that he had victimised and bullied the trainer. On 6 May 2022 Serco dismissed him. He sued in the Federal Court, representing himself.

The legal test

Section 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) says an employer must not take adverse action against an employee because the employee has exercised a workplace right. Dismissal is adverse action. A workplace right includes being able to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to your employment (s 341(1)(c)(ii)). Serco accepted that each of Mr Parsons' complaints was a workplace right.

The worker must prove the complaint and the adverse action. Section 361 then reverses the usual burden of proof: the action is presumed to have been taken for the reason alleged unless the employer proves otherwise. The employer must show the complaint was not a "substantial and operative" reason. As the judge stressed, the question is not whether the dismissal was unfair or based on a correct view of the facts, but what the decision-maker's true reasons were.

What the Court decided

Justice Rangiah looked at the two decisions separately. The written warning was lawful: there was a clear basis for finding the texts inappropriate and unprofessional, and he accepted the Operations Director's evidence about why she gave it.

The dismissal was different. The judge compared the March 2022 findings with what was said at the February meeting. The findings said Mr Parsons had admitted not holding catch-ups, but the meeting notes did not bear that out, and he had described discussions with the trainer on 11 October, 24 November and 22 December 2021. They blamed him for not speaking to her in the week after her return, when the Operations Director had told him not to contact her while the first complaint was investigated. The judge called that finding "illogical".

The findings also faulted him for not telling the trainer that a colleague's contract had been extended, a finding made "without making the rudimentary check" that would have shown she already knew. Asked why the trainer was never interviewed, the Operations Director said "I didn't feel it was needed". The judge found her stated reasons were not genuinely her reasons, that Serco had not discharged its onus, and that Mr Parsons' complaint about her was a substantial and operative reason for the dismissal.

How much was awarded

Mr Parsons found work as an airline service agent in October 2022 on lower pay. Because the relationship was strained, the judge limited lost earnings to 24 months: $108,092, plus $11,350 superannuation, rounded up to $120,000, with interest. He added $10,000 for hurt and humiliation, the amount Mr Parsons had claimed, saying he would have been inclined to award more. In September 2024 the Court ordered Serco to pay a $25,000 penalty to Mr Parsons.

Serco appealed. In June 2025 the Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal as incompetent, because Serco needed leave to appeal and had not relied on its application for it. The Full Court added that leave would not have been granted and that it found no error in the judge's reasons.

What this means for you

A complaint about how a manager handled an investigation can be a protected workplace right, just like a bullying complaint or an application to the Commission. If you are dismissed after complaining, the employer must prove its real reasons, and a court will test those reasons against the evidence. Records helped Mr Parsons here: the emails he produced and his support person's notes of the February meeting.

Complaining does not protect you from genuine discipline, as the upheld warning shows. If you are disciplined or dismissed after raising a complaint, consider getting advice early. A general protections application about a dismissal must be lodged with the Fair Work Commission within 21 days.