225Dismissal or other victimisation of employee

225 Dismissal or other victimisation of employee

225 Dismissal or other victimisation of employee

(1) This section applies to—

(a) an employer who dismisses an employee, injures an employee in the employment of the employer or alters the position of an employee to the employee’s detriment; and

(b) an employer who threatens to do any of those things to an employee; and

(c) an employer or prospective employer who refuses or fails to offer employment to a prospective employee, or treats a prospective employee less favourably than another prospective employee would be treated in offering terms of employment.

(2) The employer or prospective employer is guilty of an offence if the employer or prospective employer engaged in that conduct because the employee or prospective employee (as the case may be)—

(a) has assisted or has given any information to a public agency in respect of a breach or alleged breach of an Australian rail safety law; or

(b) has made a complaint about a breach or alleged breach of an Australian rail safety law to the employer, a fellow employee, union, public authority or public official; or

(c) assists or has assisted, or gives or has given any information to, a public agency in respect of a breach or alleged breach of an Australian rail safety law; or

(d) has made a complaint about a breach or alleged breach of an Australian rail safety law to a former employer, former fellow employee, union, public authority or public official.

Maximum penalty—

(a) in the case of an individual—$10 000;

(b) in the case of a body corporate—$50 000.

(3) An employer or prospective employer may be guilty of an offence against subsection (2) only if the reason mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (b), (c) or (d) is the dominant reason why the employer or prospective employer engaged in the conduct.

(4) In proceedings for an offence against subsection (2), if all the facts constituting the offence other than the reason for the defendant’s conduct are proved, the defendant bears the onus of proving that the reason alleged in the charge was not the dominant reason why the defendant engaged in the conduct.