Federal Court declares NAAJA CEO Priscilla Atkins’ sacking unlawful, criticises ex-chair Colleen Rosas

A long-running employment dispute between the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and its head Priscilla Atkins has finally been resolved.

NAAJA chief executive Priscilla Atkins has won a lawsuit over her purported dismissal from the role last year. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

Priscilla Atkins has recorded a resounding victory in her bitter employment dispute with the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, with the Federal Court declaring her termination invalid.

The NAAJA chief executive sued the Aboriginal legal aid agency after its board purported to sack her from the role early last year, with a ruling in the long running dispute handed down on Thursday.

Justice Natalie Charlesworth found Ms Atkins had exercised a recognised workplace right in making a complaint against NAAJA chief financial officer Madhur Evans in November 2022.

In subsequently suspending and then terminating Ms Atkins’ employment as well as engaging an external audit of her alleged “misconduct”, Justice Charlesworth ruled NAAJA had breached the Fair Work Act.

“The court has accepted Ms Atkins’ argument that the resolution for her termination was not made in compliance with NAAJA’s constitution,” she said.

“NAAJA’s argument that the resolution was valid notwithstanding that noncompliance is rejected.

The court found Ms Atkins exercised a recognised workplace right in making a complaint against NAAJA chief financial officer Madhur Evans. Picture: (A)manda Parkinson

“The consequence is that the purported dismissal of Ms Atkins could not be legally effective.”

Justice Charlesworth said under the FWA, NAAJA bore the onus of proving its actions were not taken for a prohibited reason, including the exercise of Ms Atkins’ workplace rights.

She said there was insufficient evidence to conclude an allegation by former NAAJA chairwoman Colleen Rosas that Ms Atkins had forged her signature was not “actuated by Ms Atkins’ exercise of her workplace right to make a complaint”.

Justice Charlesworth also found NAAJA had failed to demonstrate the external audit report was not commissioned as “part of a design to remove Ms Atkins from the workplace because she had made the complaint, including by giving a false appearance of fairness and independence”.

“The court has concluded that there was a deliberate decision to confine (auditor) BDO (Australia) in the conduct of its investigation by directing it not to obtain any information or documents from Ms Atkins that may be relevant to the subject matter of the investigation,” she said.

“The court has concluded that information relevant to the subject matter of the investigation was withheld from BDO and from the board, specifically by NAAJA’s chairperson.

“That conduct is not consistent with a genuine desire to have BDO independently make fair and factual findings in connection with the subject matter of the investigation.”

The court held there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that an allegation Ms Atkins had forged then-chairwoman Collen Rosas signature was bona fide. Photograph: Che Chorley

Justice Charlesworth also found “the evidence as to by whom, when and why the so called concerns” that prompted BDO’s engagement were raised was “vague and variable”

“So too was the evidence as to when and by whom BDO was engaged, who was responsible for identifying the scope of its work and who provided BDO with documentation,” she said.

“There is evidence that Ms Evans, the person against whom Ms Atkins had complained, had a substantial role in those processes and that she also participated in communications relating to the future of Ms Atkins’ employment.

“Ms Evans was not called to explain that involvement and the evidence does not otherwise provide an explanation for it, at least in a way that would assist NAAJA’s case.”

The case will return to court on July 4 before Justice Charlesworth hears submissions on possible remedies available to Ms Atkins.