The Claimant, who had been employed by the Respondent company, was summarily dismissed following investigations into alleged sexual harassment and assault. The Claimant asserted that he was dismissed because he had alleged, at his disciplinary hearing, that the Respondent had already decided to dismiss him. However, the ET stated that, in the context of the right not to be unfairly dismissed, s 104 ERA requires an allegation by the employee that he has been unfairly dismissed, not merely that the employer is taking action, which will or threatens to or may result in an unfair dismissal in the future.

The EAT held that the ET had correctly interpreted s 104 ERA in giving the provision its natural meaning.