A-League club facing adverse action claim in Court

June 12, 2020

A-League club facing adverse action claim in Court

It is sometimes forgotten that sporting clubs and organisations are employers who are also subject to workplace laws and regulations in relation to their employees.

In a stark reminder that sporting clubs and organisations are not exempt from the rules, the former team manager of Western United has commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, alleging that the head coach of the A-League club bullied him and caused him to develop a mental illness.

The team manager is claiming that the club breached the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) by taking adverse action against him on the basis of protected attributes or because he exercised a workplace right to make a complaint.

Specifically, the team manager has alleged that he was bullied by the head coach on a number of occasions between July and November 2019 before his resignation in December 2019. The allegations include:

he was yelled at, cursed at and abused by the head coach; and
he was made to perform work outside the scope of his role, such as washing the head coach’s soiled clothes and bed sheets, and running personal errands for the head coach.

The team manager has also claimed that he made a number of complaints about his employment, including his concerns about his role, hours and the treatment he received from the head coach. It is claimed that the head coach confronted him and told him he was not entitled to question his management skills.

The team manager is seeking $110,000 in compensation for lost past and future income and a further $20,000 for pain and suffering. Pecuniary penalties are also being sought.

The club is yet to file a defence, however, it has publicly indicated that it denies the claim and has noted that the employee resigned from his employment.

It is important to note that dismissal is not an essential requirement of an adverse action claim. Adverse action can take the form of any conduct by an employer that injures the employee in their employment, alters the employee’s position to their prejudice, or discriminates between the employee and others in the workplace.

It will be interesting to see how this matter unfolds and in particular, the specific allegations of adverse action alleged against the club.

Regardless of the outcome, sporting clubs and organisations should be aware that the general protections provisions of the FW Act will apply to them and their employees.

We will keep you updated as the matter progresses.

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

$15.3 million in penalties imposed on sushi restaurants and director for serious contraventions

Put your records on

The director and Chief Executive Officer of a group of four sushi restaurants which operated in NSW, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory was recently ordered to pay $1.6 million for her involvement in contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by the Federal Court of Australia.

September 19, 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

Federal Circuit Court

General Protections

Penalties

Western United

FWC finds employer’s assumptions about employee’s capacity rendered dismissal unfair

You need to chill out

If an employer is questioning the capacity of an ill or injured worker’s ability to fulfil the inherent requirements of their position, they may consider testing the legitimacy of an employee’s prognoses and medical advice. In these circumstances, the employer should be aware of their obligations to the employee and the potential consequences of failing to satisfy them.

March 27, 2025

Blogs

FWC finds dismissal harsh and unreasonable given employer’s communication blunder of policy changes

Sliding into your DM’s

It is best practice for employers to ensure that their policies and procedures are properly communicated and understood by employees, especially in circumstances where the policy relates to important topics such as the health and safety of employees.

March 27, 2025

Blogs

Poor redundancy process results in successful workers compensation claim

Coffee catastrophe

There are a number of legal obligations and risks that an employer must consider when implementing any form of disciplinary or dismissal process. These are not limited to claims made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) but can also include the risk of claims made under anti-discrimination or workers compensation legislation.

March 13, 2025

Resources: Blogs