Resources: Blog

A-League club facing adverse action claim in Court

Blog
|

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.

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.

Similar articles

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...

Employee dismissed for exercising workplace right to take leave

Diamonds are not a girl’s best friend

The general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) provide protections against adverse action which is taken for a prohibited reason. Prohibited reasons for taking adverse action include situations where a person has a workplace right and exercises (or proposes to exercise) that right. Workplace rights include the right to utilise leave entitlements under the FW Act.

Read more...

Court finds multiple breaches of general protections provisions

Direction needed

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the Court) recently ruled on an application brought by an employee alleging that three respondents had engaged in breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), including sham contracting and dismissing the employee because she was pregnant.

Read more...

Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

Read more...

The importance of WHS refresher training

Not a “one and done” thing

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training.

Read more...

Casual Terms Award Review 2021

NEWS UPDATE

In March 2021, the casual employment amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) introduced a new statutory definition of “casual employee” and an entitlement to casual conversion as one of the National Employment Standards (NES).

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.