WHS complaints not the deciding factor in manager’s dismissal, court finds

Adverse action claims tied to work health and safety (WHS) complaints remain a real risk for employers – but a recent Federal Circuit and Family Court decision demonstrates how defensible these claims can be with the right evidence. The case of Shirmohammadi v MMP Industrial Pty Ltd highlights the importance of clearly documenting legitimate performance and conduct issues and being able to prove that dismissal decisions are genuinely unrelated to any workplace rights exercised by an employee (e.g., raising complaints about WHS).

Key facts

The applicant, Mr Shirmohammadi, was employed as Operations Manager by MMP Industrial Pty Ltd (MMP Industrial), a spray paint manufacturer. MMP Industrial dismissed Mr Shirmohammadi on 17 April 2023 for performance issues and misconduct.

Subsequently, Mr Shirmohammadi commenced proceedings against MMP Industrial for adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act), alleging the real reason for his dismissal was because he had repeatedly raised concerns with the MMP Industrial’s owner and CEO about safety issues at the company’s Mulgrave site in New South Wales.

According to Mr Shirmohammadi, his complaints included concerns about the handling of toxic and flammable chemicals, unsafe forklift practices and the use of mobile phones in operational areas. He also alleged that during government safety inspections, staff were instructed to shut down certain production areas so inspectors could not observe unsafe warehouse conditions.

The safety concerns were raised against a backdrop of prior regulatory action. MMP Industrial had been previously prosecuted under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) and fined significant amounts for breaches involving flammable chemicals and unguarded machinery. It had also received multiple prohibition and improvement notices from the regulator, SafeWork NSW.

What is adverse action?

Under the general protection provisions of the Fair Work Act, employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee due to:

1. discriminatory reasons (e.g., age, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.); or
2. exercising, or threatening to exercise, a workplace right (e.g., making complaints or inquiries in relation to their employment, utilising leave entitlements, etc.).

Once an employee establishes that adverse action occurred and alleges a prohibited reason, the reverse onus of proof applies, and the employer must demonstrate that the alleged reason was not a substantial and operative factor in the decision for dismissal.

Key findings

Judge Nicholas Manousaridis accepted that Mr Shirmohammadi had made the WHS complaints he described and had sought improvements to MMP Industrial’s safety practices.

However, the court found those complaints were not the reason for his dismissal. The court carefully examined the CEO’s evidence about his decision-making process and accepted that the key factors influencing the dismissal were unrelated to the safety complaints. These included:

• Mr Shirmohammadi’s abrasive communication style;
• his failure to attend team meetings; and
• poor performance by his team in procurement and production.

Importantly, the court found no evidence that the CEO reacted negatively to the WHS complaints. Judge Manousaridis noted there was no indication of “anger, annoyance, or any other negative response” when the issues were raised by Mr Shirmohammadi.

On that basis, the court concluded that Mr Shirmohammadi’s complaints were not a substantial or operative factor in the decision to terminate his employment. The adverse action claim and a related claim for failure to give notice were therefore dismissed. Although, the court did uphold several wage-related claims, finding MMP Industrial and its CEO had failed to pay Mr Shirmohammadi his correct wages, failed to provide payslips and deliberately provided false or misleading pay advice.

Key takeaways

For employers, the key lesson from this case is to ensure that disciplinary/performance or termination decisions are well documented, based on legitimate business reasons, and clearly separated from any protected workplace activities such as complaints about WHS issues.

Want to Know More?

If you are considering terminating an employee and require guidance to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act and relevant award provisions, please contact NRA Legal on 1800 572 679 for a confidential conversation.

Shirmohammadi v MMP Industrial Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 181 (13 February 2026)