Resources: Blog

Adverse action claim initiated against professional football club


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 ordered to pay maximum compensation following “entirely unjust” disciplinary process

Knives Out

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) requires that employers comply with a number of procedural elements in a disciplinary process prior to making a decision about whether an employee’s conduct or behaviour warrants disciplinary action.


Employee fails in bid to have safety-related dismissal found to be unfair

Garbage in, garbage out

A dismissed employee can lodge an unfair dismissal claim alleging that their dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Employees will often claim that the dismissal was all three: harsh, unjust and unreasonable.


Court finds rescinded job offer was not age discrimination

The rooster and the sunrise

Discrimination in the workplace is unlawful under a number of Australian laws, including state and federal anti-discrimination legislation (such as the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth)) as well as the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).


FWC finds sexually explicit Facebook post warranted dismissal, despite the employer’s ‘rather unusual’ workplace culture

Not so ‘funny’ meme

The workplace culture of an organisation should reflect the values that the business upholds and expects of its employees. It is becoming increasingly challenging for employers and employees to understand where a line is drawn between a relaxed and open workplace culture and a workplace culture that tolerates inappropriate behaviour.


Casual employee unfairly dismissed for Facebook recommendation

Halt before you post

Social media and employee’s conduct online has without doubt added a layer to the employer and employee relationship. While employees may think that their online activities done outside of work hours may be private, their conduct online may become relevant to their employment, for example, where it may disparage their employer, other employees or clients.


Vaccinations and the workplace

Shots fired

One of the most topical questions for employers during the COVID-19 pandemic has been whether they need to introduce policies that mandate vaccinations and, if so, what can be done to enforce them in the workplace.


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.