Resources: Blog

Lawyer dismissed for publicly criticising clients

Blog
|

Destructive criticism

When considering claims of adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) a key focus of inquiry is the actual reasons of the decision-maker for engaging in the action.

When considering claims of adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) a key focus of inquiry is the actual reasons of the decision-maker for engaging in the action.

The Federal Court of Australia recently considered this point in determining whether a major law firm engaged in adverse action in contravention of the FW Act when it dismissed a lawyer who had publicly criticised the law firm’s clients, being two Commonwealth Government agencies.

In R v The Partnership trading as HWL Ebsworth Lawyers [2019] FCA 1409, a senior lawyer employed on a casual basis was dismissed by the firm’s managing partner after he publicly criticised the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

The lawyer made a number of public remarks expressing his view that the Government agencies had failed to adequately respond to recommendations made following a 2011 inquiry into historical sexual assault in the military, an inquiry which he had led.

The lawyer was told by the firm’s managing partner and the partner in charge of the Canberra office, that such conduct was unacceptable as the agencies were clients of the firm.

The lawyer’s conduct also prompted the firm to issue a written policy in 2014 requiring its partners and staff to obtain the prior approval of the managing partner or the national marketing manager before proceeding with any media interview. The policy also prohibited, under all circumstances, negative or critical comments being made about existing, past or potential clients, government departments or entities, regulatory bodies or any existing or proposed legislation or regulations.

Despite this policy and the warnings, the lawyer continued to make public comments about the agencies without authorisation, including in an article published in The Sydney Morning Herald in December 2016.

In February 2017, the managing partner dismissed the lawyer without providing reasons.

The lawyer claimed, amongst other things, that the firm had taken adverse action against him for making inquiries about his retainer (which he had made the day before his dismissal), and for his political opinion.

Given the timing of the dismissal, the Court conceded that the lawyer’s inquiries about his pay were, at the very least, the reason why the managing partner dismissed the lawyer when he did. However, the Court was not convinced that those inquiries were the substantial reason for the dismissal. It noted that the lawyer had been making inquiries about his retainer since July 2016 and the fact that the dismissal was not effected until many months later and this suggested to the Court that it was not the reason for the dismissal.

According to the Court, the question to be asked was “not what [the lawyer] did but rather why [the managing partner] terminated his employment”. On this point, the Court was satisfied that the managing partner, who admitted that he dismissed the lawyer because of his criticisms of the firm’s clients, was not concerned about the lawyer’s political opinion; he was concerned that the lawyer’s conduct in criticising the firm’s clients was a threat to the business, and that the lawyer was being insubordinate.

The Court also rejected the lawyer’s argument that the policy itself was indirectly discriminatory. It found that the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) stated that conditions or requirements that are reasonable in the circumstances will not give rise to indirect discrimination, and the firm’s policy was a reasonable one having regard to its interests in deriving revenue from those clients.

The lawyer’s claim was dismissed.

Lessons for employers

In a similar tone to the High Court’s recent decision in Comcare v Banjeri [2019] HCA 23, the Federal Court has given further support to the position that a distinction can be drawn between the reasonable requirements of an employer and the freedom of employees to publicly and strongly express their political opinions.

Employers are entitled to set reasonable rules and regulations for employee conduct where there is a legitimate business interest for doing so, such as protecting its reputation, and maintaining its relationships with clients and customers.

This decision is also a reminder that care should be taken to ensure that the reasons for any disciplinary action relating to employee conduct are clearly communicated to the employee and that the action is not for any prohibited reasons.

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

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.

Read more...

FWC upholds dismissal of an employee who repeatedly and deliberately accessed customer’s confidential information without authorisation

Celebrity search

During the course of their employment, employees may have access to confidential information which belongs to their employer. This information may be in the form of personal information provided by customers and is therefore sensitive in nature.

Read more...

Full Bench quashes order to reinstate labour hire employee to host employer

Host with the most

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, where it is found by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, the primary remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) is for the employee to be reinstated to the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.

Read more...

Court fines PCBU $60,000 for failing to re-assess the risks associated with changing site conditions

Set and forget

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have a positive obligation to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others.

Read more...

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.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.

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.