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

Employer unlawfully discriminated against employee with breastfeeding responsibilities

It’s a tent-s situation

There are a number of personal attributes that are protected by Australia’s federal and state anti-discrimination laws, such as a person’s race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibilities, breastfeeding, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

Read more...

Employer’s withdrawal of role constituted dismissal from employment

Late withdrawal

For most employers, casual employment is favoured because of the flexibility it provides – employees are employed as required and have no guarantee of ongoing employment. This flexibility however does not mean that casual employees are not protected from adverse action.

Read more...

Redundancies and the skills matrix

The Matrix is a system, Neo

When implementing redundancies, it is critical that the process for selecting employees for redundancy is a transparent and objective one. A skills matrix can assist employers in this regard by creating clear and objective criteria against which employees are to be assessed.

Read more...

FWO secures penalties against bar operator and external accounting firm

Closing time

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires employers to keep certain employee records for a period of 7 years. These records are necessary to ensure that employees have been paid their minimum entitlements should an underpayment claim be made.

Read more...

Employer found liable for workers compensation despite worker’s unreasonable perceptions

Fact or fiction

A recent decision of the New South Wales Personal Injury Commission serves as a reminder of the differing standards of proof when determining liability for claims of bullying and/or harassment under workers compensation laws and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Commission finds employee’s flexible working request to work entirely from home was not reasonable

The worst has now passed

One of the many changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) introduced this year include the Fair Work Commission’s new powers to deal with disputes relating to requests for flexible working arrangements.

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.

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