Resources: Blog

Adverse action claim initiated against professional football club

Blog
|

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.

Similar articles

Employer fails to disprove adverse action claim

Step back

A recent decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has reaffirmed the standard of proof that is required to disprove allegations of unlawful adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Labour hire company and placement company penalised for discriminating against prospective employee

Age is just a number

The general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) are wide-ranging in the sense that they provide protections to, and prohibit adverse action by, persons and entities beyond an employee and an employer.

Read more...

WHS rights and adverse action

A slippery slope

Under the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee (such as dismissing them from employment) because they have a workplace right or because they have exercised or chosen not to exercise that right.

Read more...

Employer dismisses long standing employee for breaching drug policy

Organic panic

Although circumstances may be unique to each case, generally, workplace policies will provide employers with grounds for termination when a significant breach has occurred.

Read more...

Managing returns to the workplace in the post-COVID-19 environment

The HomeWork Debate

In the post COVID-19 environment, one of the most common issues faced by employers is facilitating the return of employees to the office or normal workplace. In particular, many employers have been required to deal with increased reluctance by employees to return to the workplace following lengthy periods of working from home.

Read more...

Court confirms small claim proceedings extends to matters involving accessorial liability

The deregistered accessory

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) is able to determine certain underpayment disputes as “small claims proceedings”.

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 Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.