Yeoh v IBM Australia Ltd [2015] FCCA 724: Applicant Loses Return to Work Case
Tuesday 14 April 2015 @ 9.39 a.m. | Industrial Law | Legal Research
In the judgment of Yeoh v IBM Australia Ltd [2015] FCCA 724 (18 March 2015), a young mother who complained that multinational technology giant IBM had overloaded her with work after she returned from maternity leave has been ordered to pay $150,000 in costs after losing her court battle.
Background
Software engineer Kelly Yeoh (the Applicant) alleged that she was working for 60 hours during some weeks, when she was supposed to be working for only 20 hours. Ms Yeoh brought the action against IBM under s 49B of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).
The Federal Circuit Court of Australia heard the complaint in March 2015 and has issued a judgment in IBM's favour, ordering Mrs Yeoh to pay costs of $150,000.
Judge Street said Mrs Yeoh took maternity leave in 2008 when she worked for IBM in Canberra. After moving to Adelaide, Mrs Yeoh returned to work for the company's South Australia office in July 2009.
IBM approved a request for her hours to be reduced to 20 per week.
An IBM manager reported that Mrs Yeoh had to "skill up" because of changes in the project she was working on and said she was performing well until early 2010. In March 2010, the manager raised concerns about Mrs Yeoh's productivity.
Allegations made by the Applicant
Mrs Yeoh alleged she suffered discrimination by being required to work for more than 20 hours per week.
She alleged that she worked for 40 to 60 hours each week for a period of almost 14 months and that she had been given a weekly workload which could not be performed in 20 hours.
Comments by the Judge
Street J said Mrs Yeoh was not directed to work the longer hours.
The Judge commented at [16]:
"While it is true that the applicant did make complaints about her workload, I do not accept that she was working more than 20 hours a week on any regular basis.
I accept that she was working odd hours, due to the flexibility that she had as a result of her own request for that part-time employment.
I do not accept that the applicant was given a workload that required her to work in excess of 20 hours per week."
Reaction from IBM
An IBM code of conduct says the company "strives to maintain a healthy, safe and productive work environment which is free from discrimination and harassment".
Mrs Yeoh raised her complaints orally and said she had not made a written complaint about her alleged discrimination because she was overcome by fear and not prepared to speak up.
However, Street J said of Mrs Yeoh [at 24] that she was:
"… clearly a highly intelligent, articulate and capable individual who was well able to formulate and make written complaints if she chose to do so".
The judge said he favoured evidence from IBM managers who said Mrs Yeoh was told she should not work more than 20 hours. And he rejected Mrs Yeoh's allegations of discrimination on the basis of reasons including her gender and being a young mother.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
Sources:
Yeoh v IBM Australia Limited [2015] FCCA 724 (18 March 2015)
Woman takes on IBM and loses $150,000 in return-to-work case – smh.com.au
