Adverse action claim initiated against professional football club

June 12, 2020

Adverse action claim initiated against professional football club

The Chief Operating Officer of Macarthur and South West United FC has launched legal proceedings against the Club, the Club Chair and another director alleging breaches of the general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The Chief Operating Officer of Macarthur and South West United FC (the Club) has launched legal proceedings against the Club, the Club Chair and another director alleging breaches of the general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

The FW Act provides protections including but not limited to, protection from adverse action for exercising workplace rights, for engaging in industrial activity and for temporary absence due to illness or injury. The FW Act also provides protection from discrimination on the basis of a protected attribute.

Penalties apply for breaches of the adverse action provisions of the FW Act. The maximum penalty is currently $12,600 for an individual and $63,000 for a body corporate.

In his claim filed in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the employee has alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of his caring responsibilities in breach of section 351 of the FW Act. The employee alleges that, after the Club Chair was appointed in February 2020, his duties were reallocated to another director without consultation.

The employee also claims that the Club Chair refused to assure him of the security of his position and that this uncertainty caused him mental distress. The employee claims that his health worsened following allegations from the Club Chair that he had breached his employment contract by forwarding work emails to a personal email account, and after a journalist indicated to him that his position was under threat as he was going to be “purged” by the Club.

The employee has been certified as unfit from work since March 2020 and has not worked since this time.

In the claim, the employee is seeking $200,000 in damages for shock and distress, medical expenses, his costs for relocating from Queensland to Sydney and for diminution of employment opportunities. The employee is also seeking compensation and penalties for breaches of the FW Act.

Under the FW Act, the Federal Circuit Court also has the power to “make any order the court considers appropriate” if it is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil remedy provision, such as the general protections provisions. This includes making an order to award compensation for loss suffered as a result of the contravention, as sought by the employee in this matter.

Lessons for Employers

This claim is an important reminder to sporting organisations, professional or otherwise, that the general protections provisions in the FW Act apply to all employers and significant penalties can apply for contraventions. It is also a timely reminder that an employee does not have to be dismissed from their employment before they can make a general protections claim. An employee may make a claim alleging adverse action at any time during their employment.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Court temporarily reinstates employee pending adverse action claim

BRB

The probation period is commonly used by employers to assess the suitability of an employee for ongoing employment. One of the reasons that the probation period is of benefit to employers is because, when aligned with the minimum employment period set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), it allows an employer to end the employment relationship before an employee becomes entitled to protection from unfair dismissal.

October 22, 2024

Blogs

“Bad Blood” - Adverse Action and Unfair Dismissal

In the wake of challenging economic circumstances and increasing episodes of poor employee behaviour, employers may be required to make difficult, but necessary, decisions in relation to its workforce.

August 8, 2024

Events

Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.

June 19, 2024

Macarthur and South West United FC

Shock

Commission finds employer’s unsubstantiated allegations rendered dismissal unfair

Not mushroom for error

Where there is a factual dispute about allegations made against an employee, employers must ensure that the allegations are properly tested before proceeding to a disciplinary process. This will ensure that the employee has been provided with procedural fairness and any reasons relied on by the employer as grounds for dismissal are valid.

November 19, 2024

Blogs

Commission finds role with additional 88km travel time was not suitable alternative employment

The road less travelled

An employer may apply to the Fair Work Commission to have an employee’s redundancy pay reduced to a specified amount (which may be nil) in circumstances where it has obtained “other acceptable employment” for the employee.

November 19, 2024

Blogs

FWC finds Philippine-based worker entitled to claim unfair dismissal

Objection overruled

When engaging overseas workers to perform work for an Australian entity, employers need to be mindful of the risks that such workers may be considered employees to whom the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) might apply.

November 12, 2024

Resources: Blogs