What a general protections claim actually is
A general protections claim is not about performance or fairness in the usual sense.
It is about motive.
Under Australian employment law, an employee may bring a general protections claim if they believe they were treated adversely because they:
- raised a workplace complaint
- exercised a workplace right
- took or requested leave
- had a protected attribute
- engaged in lawful industrial activity
“Adverse action” includes termination, demotion, reduced hours, or other negative treatment.
What makes these claims unique is not the allegation, but who must prove what.
Why general protections claims are riskier than unfair dismissal
In unfair dismissal matters, the employee must prove the dismissal was unfair.
In general protections matters, the burden of proof shifts to the employer.
This means:
- the employee alleges an unlawful reason
- the employer must prove that reason played no part in the decision
Good intent is not enough.
Belief is not enough.
You must be able to demonstrate your reasoning clearly and consistently.
This reversal is why these claims feel so confronting.
Why these claims catch growing businesses off guard
General protections claims thrive on timing, language and inconsistency.
At under 100 employees:
- decisions are often discussed verbally
- documentation is light
- managers speak candidly
- founders explain decisions honestly
Those habits work internally, but they create exposure externally.
A decision that makes perfect sense inside the business can look suspicious when examined later, especially if it followed a complaint or leave request.
Growth doesn’t create new risk.
It exposes casual process.
The most common trigger points for general protections claims
Most general protections claims are not planned. They are reactive.
Common trigger moments include:
- terminating or disciplining an employee shortly after a complaint
- managing performance after a leave request
- restructuring following conflict
- responding emotionally to feedback or resistance
In many cases, the employer’s reason is legitimate.
The problem is sequence.
When adverse action follows protected activity too closely, the inference is easy to draw.
What employers usually get wrong
The biggest mistake employers make is over-explaining.
Common errors include:
- trying to be transparent during termination
- referencing stress, attitude, or “concerns raised”
- blending performance issues with frustration
- documenting reasons after the decision
In an attempt to be fair, employers often create the very narrative that is later used against them.
Precision matters more than honesty in these moments.
What Fair Work looks for in general protections matters
Fair Work does not ask whether the employee was difficult.
It asks whether the protected reason played any part in the decision.
Key questions include:
- What was the reason for the action?
- When was that reason first identified?
- Was the decision already contemplated before the protected activity?
- Are the employer’s explanations consistent over time?
If answers shift or rely on memory, risk increases quickly.
This is where poor documentation becomes expensive.
How general protections differ from unfair dismissal in practice
Unfair dismissal looks at:
- fairness of process
- proportionality of outcome
General protections look at:
- motivation
- timing
- causal connection
A termination can be procedurally fair and still unlawful if it is linked to a protected reason.
This distinction is why general protections claims often surprise employers who “did everything else right”.
The commercial cost of getting this wrong
General protections claims are rarely quick or tidy.
The real costs include:
- prolonged legal exposure
- senior leadership distraction
- stress and uncertainty
- pressure to settle early
Because the burden of proof sits with the employer, even weak claims can be expensive to defend.
This is why prevention matters more here than almost anywhere else in employment law.
What reduces general protections risk in practice
Risk is reduced when:
- reasons for decisions are identified early
- documentation exists before conflict arises
- communication is controlled and consistent
- managers understand what not to say
You do not need legal language.
You need discipline.
Most general protections exposure is created before anyone realises a claim is possible.
Where HR support makes the biggest difference
General protections risk is where ad hoc HR advice delivers the most value.
For businesses under 100 employees, HR support typically involves:
- sense-checking timing
- refining wording
- separating emotion from rationale
- identifying safer sequencing options
This is not about stopping decisions.
It is about protecting them.
FAQs
Before you act
General protections claims are created through timing and language, not bad intent.
If a decision follows a complaint, leave request, or conflict, that is usually the moment to pause and get advice before acting.
👉 Get free initial HR advice
Get Social