Resources: Blogs

#TakeAKnee

Blogs
|

Can employers legally dismiss an employee for “taking a knee”?

The world has been following the NFL with keen interest these past few weeks after President Trump called on NFL owners to fire players who refused to stand for the US national anthem and flag before a game – raising interesting questions for us sports-loving employment lawyers.

The world has been following the NFL with keen interest these past few weeks after President Trump called on NFL owners to fire players who refused to stand for the US national anthem and flag before a game – raising interesting questions for us sports-loving employment lawyers.

The “Take a Knee” movement was started in 2016 by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, in protest against what he considered to be racial inequality and police brutality against African-Americans in the US.

Since then, more and more NFL footballers have been taking a knee during the US national anthem at games as a form of peaceful silent protest.

In a defiant response to the President’s comments last month, many more players, coaches and owners of multiple NFL clubs chose to take a knee, stand with locked arms or stay in their dressing rooms while the national anthem was sung and flag presented at various football games.

This scenario raises interesting questions about voicing political opinion in the employment context, particularly with regards to the protections offered by Australian laws.

For example, what protections would a player in Australia have if they were sacked for refusing to stand during the national anthem in silent protest or for even using a public forum, such as a game day, to voice their opinions on political issues?

There are a number of laws that protect employees from adverse action or unlawful discrimination by their employer in Australia, including the general protections provisions contained in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

In particular, section 351 of the FW Act states that an employee is protected from adverse action by their employer if such action is taken because of a protected attribute, including (in most States and Territories) an employee’s political opinion. Political opinion has been found to include a person’s participation in political action, such as a protest.

If a club had decided to fire a player because they engaged in some form of political action – such as taking a knee during the national anthem – the player would be entitled to the protection of section 351 of the FW Act.

It’s also important to note that this protection is not necessarily limited to dismissal from employment. If, for example, a player was stood down from a couple of games or told to play at a lower grade, or was even given less game time because they engaged in some form of political action, this would also constitute adverse action and a breach of the general protections provisions of the FW Act.

The key to accessing the protections under the FW Act is the reason behind the employer’s actions. Consider, for instance, the sacking of SBS sports reporter Scott McIntyre in 2015 after he tweeted what were widely regarded as offensive comments about ANZAC Day. The alleged reason for that dismissal was not his political opinion or his expression of that opinion, but his breach of SBS’ workplace code of conduct and their social media policy.

Political opinions can be divisive, irrespective of industry, position or public attention. Both employers and employees have responsibilities to each other in the employment relationship and the law in Australia seeks to strike a balance between preserving individual rights to political opinion and an employer’s right to take action in response to unacceptable employee conduct or in circumstances where an employee’s actions damage the employer’s reputation or brand.

 

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.

 

Similar articles

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.

Read more...

“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.

Read more...

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.

Read more...

Commission finds no objective or rational connection between an employee’s age and his flexible working request to work from home

The age of flexibility

An employee will only be eligible to request a flexible working arrangement if they are able to demonstrate that there is a sufficient nexus between one of the prescribed circumstances under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the request itself.

Read more...

Employer’s “tick and flick” training on workplace policies rendered dismissal unfair

Not just the what, but also the why

When relying on a workplace policy as grounds for dismissal, employers must be able to clearly demonstrate that the employee is aware of the policy and has undergone meaningful training on the policy.

Read more...

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.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.