Taken off her school bus run after asking for a pay rise
Elaine Bell had driven the school bus between Ouyen and Hattah, on and off, since about 1989. The bus was kept at her home. When Ouyen Hotel Pty Ltd took over the run in 2012, she kept running it much as she always had. She never received a payslip.
In February 2017 the run was made longer. On 9 May 2018 Ms Bell wrote to the company's director asking for a pay increase, back pay and monthly payslips. The director's answer was to take her off the run. The bus was collected from her in June and she was offered a different run, which she did not want. On 3 August 2018 she told him she could not keep working for him.
She brought a general protections claim. The company's main defence was that she had simply resigned. Judge Burchardt found that asking for more pay and for payslips was a workplace right, and the company had to prove it acted for some other reason. It could not. The judge was "entirely satisfied" that the director meant to change her circumstances to her detriment because of her complaint. Removing her from the run was adverse action under s 340.
The judge also found that taking away a job she had held for so long left her no real alternative but to resign. That was a repudiation of her contract and a forced resignation. She also proved she had been underpaid under the award, and that no payslips were ever given. A coercion claim and a claim for a year's lost income failed.
In a second judgment in September 2020, the court ordered the company to pay her $10,299 in unpaid wages, $5,000 for hurt and distress caused by the director's offensive conduct towards her after she left and interest. It also imposed $60,000 in penalties for the three breaches and ordered that they be paid to Ms Bell.
If you are moved off your usual work soon after asking about your pay or payslips, it is worth getting advice. Leaving because of that treatment is not necessarily the same as choosing to resign.
The company's main defence was that Ms Bell resigned. Since 7 July 2026, under Act No. 62 of 2026, an alleged dismissal is enough for a general protections dismissal claim to get through the Fair Work Commission stage, so a dispute about whether a worker resigned no longer blocks that step.
A published decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, retold in plain English. Lawcaptain did not act in this case. Every outcome depends on its own facts. General information, not legal advice about your situation.
Dismissed? Know what your case is worth.
The Employment Case Review checks your facts against real decisions like this one.
For employees in the Fair Work system. Employed by a WA sole trader, partnership, State agency or council? The review isn't for you — see the WA state system.
General protections
Safety rep sacked after calling WorkSafe wins reinstatementFederal Court of Australia · 6 July 2020Read the case study
Removal announced to 423 colleagues, then dismissedFederal Court of Australia · 22 June 2021Read the case study
Sacked after telling workmates they did not have to sign a pay cutFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · 9 December 2025Read the case study