Published on 20 June 2025
The Federal Court of Australia has ordered St Basil’s Homes to pay over $400,000 in damages after finding that the termination of a long-serving nurse breached sections 340 and 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Employers can draw several practical lessons from this decision to strengthen grievance handling and termination processes.
Background
Ms Han had served as a registered nurse on a permanent part-time basis at St Basil’s aged care facility in Lakemba, New South Wales, for more than nine years. A Chinese Australian, she worked alongside a team of Filipino colleagues and reported to a Filipino manager.
The Complaints
In late 2019, Ms Han raised concerns about her treatment and patient safety. She reported that she was excluded from handovers due to her race, routinely ignored during shifts, and assigned a heavier and less pleasant workload than her colleagues. She also identified clinical risks arising from inadequate staff-to-patient ratios, witnessed patient abuse, and observed a medication dispensing error. When these concerns went unaddressed, she lodged further complaints about victimisation and unfair scrutiny, which management dismissed or minimised.
Employer Response
After her further complaints, St Basil’s suspended Ms Han on the basis that she had failed to provide adequate care, a claim she had in fact reported herself. Her employment was terminated without a genuine opportunity to respond. St Basil’s also reported her to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), alleging she was unfit to practice. AHPRA later rejected that report.
Court Findings
Ms Han brought a general protections claim alleging that her dismissal was caused by her protected workplace complaints and her race. The Court found that St Basil’s had:
- Provided no contemporaneous evidence of a lawful reason for dismissal.
- Failed to document or conduct a fair disciplinary process.
- Allowed the predominant racial group to influence decision making.
- Ignored her account and refused to investigate her complaints of racial exclusion.
The Court concluded that the unlawful adverse action was causally connected to her complaints and race.
Damages Awarded
The total award of $406,559.62 comprised:
- $175,000 for past economic loss, covering nearly six years without work.
- $61,559.62 for future economic loss based on an estimated return-to-work period of 18 months.
- $10,000 for future psychiatric care expenses.
- $75,000 for general damages reflecting significant psychological harm.
- $60,000 in civil penalties split into $45,000 for breach of section 351 and $15,000 for breach of section 340 of the Fair Work Act.
This sum was nearly ten times Ms Han’s average annual part-time salary.
Lessons for Employers
Employers and human resources professionals should consider the following to reduce legal risk:
- Treat complaints seriously and act early.
- Investigate with independence by engaging external investigators for serious or complex matters.
- Ensure independent decision making by excluding those involved in a complaint from termination decisions and documenting their rationales.
- Adopt consistent and fair processes with clear, documented grievance procedures.
By addressing grievances promptly and transparently, and by ensuring that termination decisions are supported by independent, documented, and lawful reasons, employers can greatly reduce the risk of costly general protections claims.
The views expressed in this article are of a general nature and do not constitute legal advice. If you require advice specific to your circumstances, please contact Buenaventura Law. The article source is available here.