Federal Court dismisses Christopher Parry’s $6m unlawful dismissal lawsuit against University of South Australia

A former University of South Australia lab worker has lost a multimillion-dollar unlawful dismissal lawsuit.

A former UniSA laboratory worker who was fired for failing to keep anatomy specimens hydrated has lost a $6m unlawful dismissal lawsuit.

Christopher Parry worked in the university’s School of Health Sciences where a large collection of specimens are kept in designated “wet laboratories” for anatomical demonstrations.

He was fired on October 8, 2019 after his supervisor discovered he had not gone inside the sealed room where the specimens were kept for two weeks.

But Mr Parry claimed before both the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court that the real reason he was fired was that he had raised concerns about levels of formaldehyde – a preserving chemical linked by some scientific studies to cancer – exuding from the bodies.

During a hearing before the Federal Court, Justice Natalie Charlesworth was not asked to consider whether Mr Parry’s firing had been harsh, but only whether he had been dismissed because of his complaint.

In her published judgment, Justice Charlesworth dismissed Mr Parry’s claims of a conspiracy by the university against him.

The university was acutely aware of the fragile nature of the bodies, having had its entire collection destroyed in January that year when cooling units failed during a heatwave and all the specimens developed yeast infections.

The University of South Australia has won a multi-milion dollar unlawful dismissal lawsuit brought by a former lab technician.

The new specimens acquired by the university were “incompletely prepared”, according to Mr Parry, and were exuding formaldehyde.

Mr Parry and other staff raised concerns and were tested for exposure levels on August 12, 2019.

One of Mr Parry’s accusations was that the university deliberately delayed the results of the report into exposure which he claimed could have been ready within 24 hours.

On the Friday before he was dismissed, Mr Parry sent an email to senior staff demanding better personal protection.

In his originating application, he claimed $6m in compensation for ruining his “bright future” in the industry and blighting his “hitherto very impressive resume”.

Justice Charlesworth said Mr Parry’s evidence had been generally “unhelpful" and that he had resorted to sarcasm when being cross-examined.

She ruled that despite there being a “strong temporal” connection between Mr Parry’s complaint and his dismissal, he was not fired because he raised the safety issues.

Justice Charlesworth noted that Mr Parry’s supervisor had been “instrumental in having the health and safety issues investigated by an external consultant”.

“Whilst a health and safety issue concerning formaldehyde had plainly arisen, the evidence considered as a whole discloses that there was no attempt by the university to conceal from any person the fact that the issue had arisen or the steps being taken to resolve it,” she said.