Credit: Dreamstime
The original judgement in the Federal Court case between TechnologyOne and its former employee Behnam Roohizadegan has been overturned and will now face a retrial.
In October, the Federal Court ordered TechnologyOne to pay $5.2 million to Roohizadegan, its former regional manager for Victoria.
TechnologyOne denied the allegations and, following that judgement, said it was planning to appeal the decision previously made by Justice Duncan Kerr, stating his finding that Roohizadegan’s employment was terminated for a proscribed reason was “erroneous and against the weight of the evidence”.
“This was a senior executive earning close to $1 million per year, who no longer had the confidence of the board and his fellow executives and against whom serious allegations had been raised by staff, and we took action to address in 2016,” TechnologyOne executive chairman Adrian DiMarco told shareholders.
In a judgement filed on 4 August, it was discovered the primary judge misconstrued the terms of the relevant contract governing Roohizadegan’s employment and that the order made awarding damages for breach of it, by non-payment of incentive payments, should be set aside.
Roohizadegan made a cross-appeal on 29 January 2021.
Errors were also discovered in assessing Roohizadegan’s future economic loss and the award of damages was ‘manifestly inadequate’ along with errors in respect to interest and costs.
Roohizadegan originally filed a $14.8 million suit against the company in 2018 following allegations of workplace bullying, being marginalised and undermined from early 2016 by at least two senior executives.
He was at the company for about 10 years and claimed he was summarily dismissed on 18 May 2016, at which point he had not been paid incentives due to him since 26 November 2009 as a percentage of the profit before tax performance of the Victoria office.
Roohizadegan was said to have been an “outstanding performer” during his tenure in Victoria, but was suffering from issues in his personal life unbeknown to his colleagues.
This led to him suffering extreme stress and anxiety, it was claimed, which was allegedly coupled by specific bullying incidents.
Seeking recompense under the Fair Work Act, Roohizadegan took his former employers to court in January 2018.
Court documents stated that Di Marco was the only person responsible for the decision to terminate Roohizadegan’s employment, which wasn’t based on any of the reasons outlined in accordance to the Fair Work Act, but because licence fees in the Victorian region were not growing.
Concerns were also raised about Roohizadegan’s team, including that it was a ‘team in crisis’, and that he was unable to work well with three different managers within a two year period.
