A young physiotherapist who claimed she was terminated after raising concerns about not being paid award wages and overtime has taken the fight with her employer to an appeal in the Federal Court.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Fatima Siddiqui was terminated from her position as a physiotherapist at Mowbray Physiotherapy in September 2021, and she subsequently filed a suit with the Federal Circuit and Family Court.
She sought redress for unpaid wages, claiming that her employer, Muhammad Irfan, made her work more than ordinary full-time hours and failed to pay her overtime, and that she was paid at a rate lower than what she was entitled to.
She also alleged that Mr Irfan terminated her employment after she raised these issues with him, and that her performance had been rated as 'satisfactory' in reports he sent on her to the health regulator.
In the court hearings that followed in early 2023, Mr Irfan claimed that he had become dissatisfied with Ms Siddiqui's performance well before she raised the overtime issues.
He claimed that he had decided to dismiss Ms Siddiqui because of concerns over the accuracy of her timesheets and her delay in giving a third-party consultant permission to conduct a police background check.
This resulted in a delay in Ms Siddiqui being certified for work under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, resulting in a loss of potential business, he told the court.
Federal Court Judge Sandra Taglieri found that Mr Irfan had breached rules surrounding overtime, and later ordered him to pay Ms Siddiqui $6376.30 in penalties and compensation for unpaid overtime work.
But the judge found no fault with Mr Irfan's dismissal of Ms Siddiqui.
"I find that [Ms Siddiqui] was well aware that [Mr Irfan] was intending to terminate her employment for reasons relating to accuracy of timesheets, her impact on the business, and her aggression in challenging his integrity and failing to follow directions," the judge wrote in her decision.
"I do not accept that he was intending to terminate the employment because she was raising her right to be paid overtime."
Judge Taglieri found that Ms Siddiqui's evidence was in some cases inconsistent and not supported by documentary evidence, and dismissed most of the former employee's other claims.
Ms Siddiqui has now appealed those decisions in the Federal Court, with both parties now representing themselves.
In preliminary proceedings for that appeal, Mr Irfan sought leave to cross-appeal, and suggested that Ms Siddiqui's case was based on 'inaccurately fabricated evidence', and 'retroactively produced records that fail to meet the requisite standard of proof.'
He claimed that Ms Siddiqui was exhibiting "vexatious conduct" in her appeal, and opting to prolong the case to the detriment of the Australian legal system and taxpayers.
In a preliminary decision last week, Justice Shaun McElwaine ruled to disallow the cross-appeal by Mr Irfan, but allowed Ms Siddiqui's appeal to proceed.
The case is scheduled to be heard later this year.
