A Victorian meat inspector whose job offer was retracted after questioning his proposed contract has had his adverse action claim dismissed by a federal court. The worker argued that the prospective employer had withdrawn the offer because he had exercised a workplace right. However, the court ruled that no such right existed before employment commenced.
The ruling makes it clear that unless a legal entitlement or existing employment relationship can be shown, questions raised about a proposed job arrangement may not qualify as the exercise of a protected workplace right. You therefore need to be careful when negotiating a job offer with employers, as they may be able to rescind the offer.
The following events were detailed in the general protections case Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Meat Inspectors Pty Ltd [2025]. Stephen Leight had been working for Hardwicks Meatworks for around two decades. For the last 12 years of his employment, he worked as a meat inspector at a facility in Kyneton, Victoria. He was a member of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union. In early 2023, Meat Inspectors secured a contract to supply meat inspection services to Hardwicks Meatworks at its Kyneton facility.
This outsourcing meant that meat inspection roles at Hardwicks Meatworks, including Mr. Leight’s, would become redundant. In February 2023, Meat Inspectors offered Mr. Leight a job. The company sent him a letter of offer and a proposed employment contract. After receiving these documents, Mr. Leight contacted his union stating he was “just sending through the ‘interesting’ new agreement they want us to sign.”
The union then made enquiries to Meat Inspectors on Mr. Leight’s behalf. These concerned
aspects of the proposed contract that differed to Mr. Leight’s contract with Hardwicks Meatworks. The union sought clarification on terms concerning his mobility, probation period, personal/carers leave, enterprise agreement expiry and award.
Meat Inspectors responded directly to Mr. Leight, addressing each of the union’s queries and making several concessions. This included removing the six-month probation period and agreeing to Mr. Leight crossing out and initialling the clause regarding travel. The company told him, however, that it had not yet received his signed contract and therefore he was “not considered an employee.”
Crucially, neither Mr. Leight nor his union representative responded to this email. Mr. Leight provided medical certificates for several days of sick leave in March 2023, despite not being employed by Meat Inspectors.
On 24 March 2023, Meat Inspectors sent Mr. Leight an email stating that he had not signed the contract and that his offer of employment had been withdrawn. Meanwhile, his employment with Hardwicks Meatworks was terminated on redundancy grounds on 31 March 2023. The union subsequently lodged a general protections claim with the Fair Work Commission on behalf of Mr. Leight.
In the general protections claim,the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union argued adverse action on the basis that Mr. Leight and the union had exercised a workplace right by enquiring about his employment. The union also argued adverse action on the grounds that Mr. Leight had engaged in an industrial activity by seeking to be represented by the union.
The union’s argument was based on s341(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009. This section deems a prospective employee to have the same workplace rights he or she would have if employed.
Meat Inspectors argued to the Fair Work Commission that its withdrawal of the offer
was driven by “operational imperatives” to fill the position in a timely manner. It said that Mr. Leight didn’t declare “his intentions” five weeks after receiving the job offer.
The company argued that Mr. Leight was not protected against adverse action. It challenged the claim that a workplace right had been exercised. It argued that the right to make a complaint or inquiry under section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 is limited to a person if the person “is an employee, in relation to his or her employment.” Meat Inspectors contended that this wording “naturally excludes” prospective employees.
The company argued that this overrides the provision in section 341(3) which usually extends workplace rights to prospective employees. Furthermore, the company argued that even if Mr. Leight had been deemed an employee, the union’s queries about the job offer and proposed contract were not based on any existing “entitlement” – such as one found in a law or an existing contract. Therefore, the inquiries did not meet the legal threshold to be considered the exercise of a protected workplace right.
Mr. Leight’s general protections claim was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in July 2025. The Court agreed with Meat Inspectors that the union had made inquiries rather than complaints. It noted that a complaint includes an “expression of discontent” which seeks consideration, redress or relief. The union’s email to Meat Inspectors had sought “further information” on some of the clauses or wording of the contract.
The Court also determined that the union failed to show any “instrumental or other source” for Mr. Leight’s ability to make complaints or inquiries. This required proving the right was based on a legally binding document, such as an established common law right, an already agreed contract or a legal instrument like a modern award.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia rejected the union’s argument that no pre-existing “extant right or entitlement” was necessary for Mr. Leight to exercise the right to make an inquiry. It emphasised that for a workplace right to exist, its source “must be established”. At a minimum, the inquiry itself must be about a matter covered by the contract of employment.
The Court noted that at the time the inquiry was made, and when the job offer was withdrawn, Mr. Leight was not an employee. The terms of the contract were also not final and the subject of the union’s inquiry was not based “in any kind of legal entitlement.”
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia also addressed the union’s argument that the inspector was engaging in industrial activity by seeking union representation. It noted that the initial email questioning the contractual terms failed to identify Mr. Leight as the person on whose behalf the enquiries are made.
The Court accepted that a follow-up email did identify him and that there was evidence suggesting Mr. Leight sought union representation. However, it ruled that the union had failed to include the necessary subsequent evidence in its formal legal pleadings.
Even if the union had successfully established the legal threshold for protection, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found that Meat Inspectors did not take adverse action. It said that it withdrew the job offer based on an urgent operational need to fill the role. This was combined with the fact that several weeks had passed since the offer was made, and Mr. Leight hadn’t indicated if he would accept the offer. As a result, Mr. Leight’s general protections claim was dismissed by the Court.
Another recent case where a worker alleged adverse action after having a job offer retracted is Brendon James Heinis v Commonwealth of Australia [2025]. Melbourne-based James Heinis received a formal letter of offer for employment from the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) on 7 January 2025. He was scheduled to begin work in the position of APS4 Access Assessor on 10 February 2025.
Following receipt of the letter, Mr. Heinis was advised by his NDIA hiring manager that he should resign from his existing employer. Mr. Heinis subsequently resigned, and the next day, he completed and returned a NDIA Privacy Declaration and confidentiality agreement. This confirmed his “engagement pursuant to the Public Service Act 1999.”
Mr. Heinis subsequently completed onboarding for his new position. About a week later, he told NDIA’s disability liaison officer that he had a disability and had caring needs for disabled children. He authorised the officer to speak with the hiring manager about his disability needs so adjustments to his workplace arrangements could be made before he started.
However, a few days later NDIA told Mr. Heinis that they had withdrawn the job offer. The agency said this decision was based on the fact that he couldn’t satisfy the “conditions of engagement” of an APS4 Access Assessor. It said that this was due to Mr. Heinis’ “persistent” phone calls and “negative comments” towards the agency and its work.
Mr. Heinis argued to the Fair Work commission that NDIA took adverse action against him by withdrawing the job offer, contending that he had been dismissed. He said it had been withdrawn because he disclosed that he lived with a disability and that this was a protected attribute under the general protection provisions.
Mr. Heinis contended he had satisfied all pre-employment checks, confirmed his engagement under the Public Service Act 1999, confirmed his start date and resigned from his previous job. He rejected the agency’s claims of negative comments or persistent phone calls. Mr. Heinis also asserted that he had been denied the opportunity to answer the allegations and that they weren’t properly investigated.
The NDIA objected to the general protections application on the basis that Mr. Heinis was not an employee under the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. It therefore argued he couldn’t have been dismissed. The agency said that the letter of offer made it clear that Mr. Heinis had to satisfy several conditions, including being of good character. The letter stated that NDIA had become aware of behaviours that led it to believe Mr. Heinis couldn’t satisfy the conditions.
Mr. Heinis’ general processions claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in May 2025. The key question it needed to answer was whether Mr. Heinis was an employee of the NDIA and had been dismissed. During proceedings, Mr. Heinis accepted that his offer was contingent on completion of pre-employment checks. He also accepted that the offer could be withdrawn prior to commencement and that he did not begin working for the NDIA.
The Commission accepted that the material provided by the NDIA to Mr. Heinis clearly indicated that his offer of employment was conditional and subject to pre-employment checks. It also accepted that Mr. Heinis had not yet commenced employment with the NDIA. The Commission noted Mr. Heinis’ “frustration” and subjective view that he had done everything asked of him. However, it said that his subjective view “is not enough” to establish the existence of an employment relationship.
The Commission noted that “unless and until an employment relationship exists, it cannot be terminated.” It also highlighted that under the Fair Work Act 2009 a dismissal is defined as a person’s employment being terminated on the employer’s initiative. Given these findings, Mr. Heinis’ adverse action claim was rejected.
If you’ve been unfairly treated by an employer for exercising a workplace right, Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives can help you take back control. As Australia’s most experienced employee advocacy service, we’ve spent more than 30 years helping workers resolve issues such as unfair dismissal, discrimination, bullying, sexual harassment and redundancies.
Contact us now on 1800 333 666 to discuss your situation today. But act fast, as there are strict time limits on making a Fair Work Commission claim.
