WEBVTT - Swearing at work can get you sacked now

0:00:05.040 --> 0:00:08.039
<v Speaker 1>From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.

0:00:08.080 --> 0:00:15.440
<v Speaker 1>It's Friday, January thirty, twenty twenty six. Susan Lee is

0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:18.720
<v Speaker 1>expected to announce a new Liberal front bench in coming days,

0:00:19.040 --> 0:00:22.319
<v Speaker 1>as federal politicians prepare to return to Canberra for the

0:00:22.360 --> 0:00:26.400
<v Speaker 1>start of the parliamentary year. It might be Lee's last gasp.

0:00:26.640 --> 0:00:29.560
<v Speaker 1>She's got two right wing rivals coming for her job,

0:00:29.800 --> 0:00:32.440
<v Speaker 1>and the only thing holding them back is the fact

0:00:32.600 --> 0:00:36.040
<v Speaker 1>they can't agree on who's the best candidate this talk,

0:00:36.200 --> 0:00:39.400
<v Speaker 1>Lee's support is firming in the rest of the party

0:00:39.680 --> 0:00:42.400
<v Speaker 1>and even a suggestion the best choice might be a

0:00:42.440 --> 0:00:48.159
<v Speaker 1>more centrist candidate like Treasury spokesman Ted O'Brien. The Opposition

0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:50.800
<v Speaker 1>leader could be forgiven for dropping the old f form

0:00:50.880 --> 0:00:53.320
<v Speaker 1>in such a stressful time, but the rest of us

0:00:53.360 --> 0:00:57.080
<v Speaker 1>should watch our mouths. That's the obvious conclusion from a

0:00:57.160 --> 0:01:00.280
<v Speaker 1>case now playing out in the Federal Court where a

0:01:00.320 --> 0:01:04.920
<v Speaker 1>banker is fighting the bosses who sacked him for swearing. Today,

0:01:05.120 --> 0:01:08.040
<v Speaker 1>what are we allowed to say at work these days?

0:01:08.400 --> 0:01:15.360
<v Speaker 1>If we show up to work at all. Normally I say,

0:01:15.400 --> 0:01:17.800
<v Speaker 1>don't swear after this, but today we can.

0:01:18.440 --> 0:01:19.160
<v Speaker 2>Today we can.

0:01:19.280 --> 0:01:25.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, indeed, before we begin, there's a little bit of

0:01:25.040 --> 0:01:26.400
<v Speaker 1>swearing in this episode.

0:01:27.080 --> 0:01:31.399
<v Speaker 2>Gentlemen, you schnooks will now be targeting the wealthiest one

0:01:31.480 --> 0:01:33.680
<v Speaker 2>percent of Americans.

0:01:33.520 --> 0:01:39.640
<v Speaker 1>Talking about whales. Here we'by fucking Dix. Max Hison is

0:01:39.680 --> 0:01:42.319
<v Speaker 1>the Australian's banking reporter, and Max, you're reporting today on

0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:44.280
<v Speaker 1>an issue that's very close to my heart. Whether or

0:01:44.319 --> 0:01:47.080
<v Speaker 1>not we're allowed to swear at work. Now, you're a

0:01:47.120 --> 0:01:49.960
<v Speaker 1>Scotsman working in Australia. I don't think I've heard you

0:01:50.040 --> 0:01:51.960
<v Speaker 1>swearing in the office, but I'm pretty sure you'd be

0:01:52.000 --> 0:01:54.320
<v Speaker 1>capable of letting out a good stream of swear words.

0:01:54.360 --> 0:01:56.760
<v Speaker 2>Oh absolutely, but it's all just under the breath.

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:02.200
<v Speaker 1>Tell me what did someone allegedly say that got them

0:02:02.280 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 1>in trouble at CBA.

0:02:05.400 --> 0:02:08.440
<v Speaker 2>So there was a chap called Bradley Duff who was

0:02:08.480 --> 0:02:13.440
<v Speaker 2>a property finance director within CBA's major client group, and

0:02:13.520 --> 0:02:16.519
<v Speaker 2>he's been sacked and he's suing the bank as a result.

0:02:17.000 --> 0:02:21.440
<v Speaker 2>He was sacked for allegedly standing over in inverted commas

0:02:21.480 --> 0:02:25.160
<v Speaker 2>a junior colleague and saying in a raised voice, do

0:02:25.200 --> 0:02:27.639
<v Speaker 2>you want to get the deal done or not? And

0:02:27.919 --> 0:02:30.560
<v Speaker 2>if you can't get it done, let me know. In

0:02:30.600 --> 0:02:33.600
<v Speaker 2>addition to that, he's alleged to have touched the same

0:02:33.720 --> 0:02:37.320
<v Speaker 2>colleague on the shoulder at another meeting and said, you

0:02:37.360 --> 0:02:40.160
<v Speaker 2>can do it with friendly encouragement. We are led to

0:02:40.200 --> 0:02:44.480
<v Speaker 2>believe while they couldn't determine whether there had been contact made,

0:02:45.040 --> 0:02:48.720
<v Speaker 2>mister Duff admitted saying at another meeting or to someone else,

0:02:49.120 --> 0:02:53.240
<v Speaker 2>calmed the fuck down. At one stage, CBA, while it

0:02:53.320 --> 0:02:57.000
<v Speaker 2>was getting an external firm to investigate, put him on leave.

0:02:57.560 --> 0:02:59.360
<v Speaker 2>The external firm and we don't know who they are

0:02:59.440 --> 0:03:03.360
<v Speaker 2>the un aimed in the court documents, but they upheld

0:03:03.600 --> 0:03:08.320
<v Speaker 2>the misconduct findings, and yes, mister Dove was sacked. Now

0:03:08.520 --> 0:03:12.320
<v Speaker 2>he's suing the bank. Mister Duff claims that none of

0:03:12.360 --> 0:03:16.560
<v Speaker 2>his behavior warranted misconduct, none of it was bullying, none

0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:18.720
<v Speaker 2>of it amounted to something that he should have been

0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:22.600
<v Speaker 2>sacked for. On the swearing front, and this is where

0:03:22.639 --> 0:03:27.000
<v Speaker 2>it gets interesting for bank watchers such as myself, he

0:03:27.200 --> 0:03:31.480
<v Speaker 2>said that it was commonplace from the most senior management

0:03:31.600 --> 0:03:35.320
<v Speaker 2>down at CBA to swear and to use swear words.

0:03:35.880 --> 0:03:40.320
<v Speaker 2>CBA of course denies this, but it's certainly quite an

0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:42.240
<v Speaker 2>interesting insight into the workplace.

0:03:45.440 --> 0:03:48.480
<v Speaker 1>I had people to say this swear while offering me

0:03:48.600 --> 0:03:49.760
<v Speaker 1>directions somewhere.

0:03:50.640 --> 0:03:53.200
<v Speaker 2>Oh yeah, take it back and right.

0:03:53.960 --> 0:03:56.120
<v Speaker 1>I think Australia has gotta be the only place where

0:03:56.880 --> 0:04:00.000
<v Speaker 1>the C word is considered a friendly greeting.

0:04:00.400 --> 0:04:01.360
<v Speaker 2>Are you going ag?

0:04:04.960 --> 0:04:07.520
<v Speaker 1>I would have thought it was obvious that everyone in

0:04:07.560 --> 0:04:10.200
<v Speaker 1>Australian workplaces swear. I don't know if that's just that

0:04:10.280 --> 0:04:13.760
<v Speaker 1>I've been hardened from years in newsrooms. But there is

0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:16.640
<v Speaker 1>change happening, isn't there. I mean, even in newsrooms which

0:04:16.680 --> 0:04:19.720
<v Speaker 1>were famously very sweary environments when you and I both

0:04:19.720 --> 0:04:23.080
<v Speaker 1>started our careers, you don't hear nearly so many fbombs

0:04:23.080 --> 0:04:24.760
<v Speaker 1>now as you might have in the past.

0:04:25.040 --> 0:04:27.839
<v Speaker 2>Oh not at all. I mean when I started back

0:04:27.880 --> 0:04:30.880
<v Speaker 2>in Fleet Street and the UK, you know, I heard

0:04:30.920 --> 0:04:34.599
<v Speaker 2>stories of metal bends being thrown at reporters who feeled

0:04:34.600 --> 0:04:37.320
<v Speaker 2>to get stories. But you know, I didn't witness any

0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:40.479
<v Speaker 2>of that myself. But it's definitely less a feature of

0:04:40.480 --> 0:04:41.880
<v Speaker 2>the newsroom than it once was.

0:04:41.960 --> 0:04:46.520
<v Speaker 1>There's also a difference between swearing in anger and swearing

0:04:46.600 --> 0:04:50.320
<v Speaker 1>for emphasis, or swearing for humor or swearing for stress relief,

0:04:50.360 --> 0:04:53.320
<v Speaker 1>isn't there? I mean, it doesn't seem to me as

0:04:53.360 --> 0:04:56.239
<v Speaker 1>though calm the fuck down, which is what this person

0:04:56.279 --> 0:05:00.400
<v Speaker 1>allegedly said, is necessarily problematic. This is also so not

0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:04.640
<v Speaker 1>just retail banking. This is high level, high stress deal making,

0:05:05.360 --> 0:05:07.800
<v Speaker 1>probably one of the most high stress occupations. You can

0:05:07.839 --> 0:05:09.800
<v Speaker 1>have huge amounts of money riding on the deals that

0:05:09.839 --> 0:05:12.560
<v Speaker 1>these people are doing. It was a favorite. Can you

0:05:12.600 --> 0:05:14.919
<v Speaker 1>tell me the yield you get out of that account

0:05:15.000 --> 0:05:18.279
<v Speaker 1>versus the hours you put in? Because this isn't a

0:05:18.320 --> 0:05:21.680
<v Speaker 1>fucking social club. I want to see it in dollars.

0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:27.880
<v Speaker 1>It's fucking pathetic. Otherwise, if there's no swearing allowed anymore,

0:05:28.200 --> 0:05:30.120
<v Speaker 1>Hollywood movies are going to have to be very different

0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:31.560
<v Speaker 1>the ones about finance, don't.

0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:35.040
<v Speaker 2>The Oh indeed, I mean it kind of beggars belief

0:05:35.160 --> 0:05:39.159
<v Speaker 2>that swearing wouldn't exist. He says in his statement of

0:05:39.200 --> 0:05:42.640
<v Speaker 2>claim that he was under huge amounts of pressure and

0:05:42.720 --> 0:05:46.279
<v Speaker 2>to court him had reached breaking point, and complaints about

0:05:46.279 --> 0:05:50.400
<v Speaker 2>this to his bosses fell on deaf ears. Traders I

0:05:50.480 --> 0:05:53.960
<v Speaker 2>speak to. My job isn't what it quite once was.

0:05:54.080 --> 0:05:59.320
<v Speaker 2>The high octane, incredibly masculine environments. They are dominated by

0:05:59.320 --> 0:06:02.200
<v Speaker 2>man the trading floors. But I think you'd be a

0:06:02.240 --> 0:06:04.760
<v Speaker 2>pretty safe bet to say there's still a lot swearing

0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:06.400
<v Speaker 2>that goes on on those floors.

0:06:06.600 --> 0:06:09.520
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, so maybe if your employer wants to get rid

0:06:09.520 --> 0:06:12.120
<v Speaker 1>of you, swearing might be something that you don't want

0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:13.960
<v Speaker 1>to have on your record just in case.

0:06:14.640 --> 0:06:18.640
<v Speaker 2>Yeah absolutely. I mean I reported on a case last

0:06:18.680 --> 0:06:21.440
<v Speaker 2>year which is actually out for judgment. A former A

0:06:21.560 --> 0:06:26.320
<v Speaker 2>and Z trader. He is suing the bank for unfair dismissal,

0:06:26.880 --> 0:06:29.960
<v Speaker 2>claiming that he was a whistleblower and was actually exposing

0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:33.719
<v Speaker 2>wrongdoing on the trading floor, whereas A and Z in

0:06:33.760 --> 0:06:37.400
<v Speaker 2>this case, they claim they sacked him for fouel messages

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:41.640
<v Speaker 2>he shared with other traders. Those messages were read out

0:06:41.640 --> 0:06:46.680
<v Speaker 2>in core and all their excruciatingly offensive detail. But it

0:06:46.839 --> 0:06:49.720
<v Speaker 2>just shows you know, this stuff is quite commonplace and

0:06:49.800 --> 0:06:52.400
<v Speaker 2>you can be caught out of the sodas.

0:06:52.040 --> 0:06:56.000
<v Speaker 1>Are Australian banks is some of the economy's biggest employee.

0:06:56.040 --> 0:06:59.479
<v Speaker 1>Is the huge institution. Still, even though various CEOs are

0:06:59.520 --> 0:07:02.760
<v Speaker 1>trying to change that reality, working from home is an

0:07:02.760 --> 0:07:05.160
<v Speaker 1>issue where the banks are having to work out what

0:07:05.200 --> 0:07:07.880
<v Speaker 1>the new rules are these days. We've seen a decision

0:07:07.920 --> 0:07:11.840
<v Speaker 1>in recent days where a man who was employed under

0:07:11.880 --> 0:07:13.960
<v Speaker 1>a contract that said that he could work from home

0:07:14.000 --> 0:07:18.480
<v Speaker 1>before COVID has now had a finding that no longer applies.

0:07:18.560 --> 0:07:21.200
<v Speaker 1>The employer was within its rights to determine that that

0:07:21.400 --> 0:07:23.520
<v Speaker 1>wasn't the case, But it went the other way for

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:26.239
<v Speaker 1>another bank, didn't it? Late last year? What was that case?

0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:30.120
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, indeed, this was in October and it was west Pac.

0:07:30.720 --> 0:07:35.040
<v Speaker 2>There was a woman, a mother of twins called Carlene Chandler.

0:07:35.640 --> 0:07:39.320
<v Speaker 2>She had worked in west PAC's mortgage team for I

0:07:39.360 --> 0:07:42.680
<v Speaker 2>think over twenty years and had kind of happily been

0:07:42.720 --> 0:07:45.760
<v Speaker 2>working from home to look after two girls who were

0:07:45.800 --> 0:07:49.120
<v Speaker 2>I think primary school age. At the start of last year,

0:07:49.520 --> 0:07:52.560
<v Speaker 2>one of her bosses requested that she come into the

0:07:52.600 --> 0:07:55.200
<v Speaker 2>office more often. I think it was a minimum of

0:07:55.240 --> 0:07:59.760
<v Speaker 2>maybe three days a week. She challenged this and suggested

0:08:00.080 --> 0:08:02.800
<v Speaker 2>an alternative, which was to work I think a couple

0:08:02.880 --> 0:08:05.559
<v Speaker 2>of days at a bank branch closer to her home.

0:08:05.840 --> 0:08:08.920
<v Speaker 2>The bank refused. She took them to the Fair Work

0:08:08.920 --> 0:08:12.720
<v Speaker 2>Commission and yes, she won, which was seen at the

0:08:12.760 --> 0:08:16.240
<v Speaker 2>time as quite a momentous decision. The bank defended its

0:08:16.240 --> 0:08:21.080
<v Speaker 2>position but ultimately decided not to appeal the case. Anthony Miller,

0:08:21.240 --> 0:08:25.720
<v Speaker 2>the Westpac CEO, was concerned for the employee because there

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:28.440
<v Speaker 2>was a huge amount of press attention around her because

0:08:28.440 --> 0:08:31.280
<v Speaker 2>it was seen as this litmus test I guess for

0:08:31.280 --> 0:08:34.760
<v Speaker 2>getting people back to work post pandemic. But he kind

0:08:34.760 --> 0:08:36.800
<v Speaker 2>of said that he thought the bank had it right

0:08:37.320 --> 0:08:40.240
<v Speaker 2>and that you know, a policy of three days a

0:08:40.280 --> 0:08:43.920
<v Speaker 2>week in the office got the balance right between flexible

0:08:43.960 --> 0:08:47.360
<v Speaker 2>working and the benefits that he said that you see

0:08:47.440 --> 0:08:49.559
<v Speaker 2>from working together in an office.

0:08:53.720 --> 0:08:58.040
<v Speaker 1>Coming up, why bosses and workers are increasingly threshing it

0:08:58.080 --> 0:09:17.800
<v Speaker 1>out in courtrooms. We're at a real inflection point, aren't we,

0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:20.840
<v Speaker 1>as the economy recovers from COVID and now into a

0:09:20.880 --> 0:09:24.199
<v Speaker 1>new phase of high inflation, high cost of living, high

0:09:24.280 --> 0:09:26.599
<v Speaker 1>travel costs in particular, which means people don't want to

0:09:26.600 --> 0:09:29.400
<v Speaker 1>make the huge commute into the office. What's your sense

0:09:29.480 --> 0:09:33.040
<v Speaker 1>when these matters reach court of how tense things are

0:09:33.080 --> 0:09:35.000
<v Speaker 1>between employers and employees.

0:09:35.800 --> 0:09:38.840
<v Speaker 2>I think they're very tense. A lot of employees across

0:09:38.840 --> 0:09:43.360
<v Speaker 2>the country see these gains as they would see it

0:09:43.480 --> 0:09:46.720
<v Speaker 2>from flexible work that was brought on by the pandemic,

0:09:47.240 --> 0:09:51.480
<v Speaker 2>as quite hard fought rights, and to have them taken

0:09:51.480 --> 0:09:56.120
<v Speaker 2>away would really alter their life, especially people who have

0:09:56.240 --> 0:10:00.520
<v Speaker 2>young children or they've got caring responsibilities. The ability to

0:10:00.600 --> 0:10:04.040
<v Speaker 2>work from home, even fifty percent of the week makes

0:10:04.080 --> 0:10:07.320
<v Speaker 2>a huge difference to their lives. It's hard to say

0:10:08.280 --> 0:10:10.640
<v Speaker 2>a lot of people in corporate Australia have gone back

0:10:10.679 --> 0:10:14.600
<v Speaker 2>full time and that's often set from the top. But

0:10:15.040 --> 0:10:17.320
<v Speaker 2>if I was going to give my opinion, I think

0:10:17.640 --> 0:10:19.440
<v Speaker 2>flexible work is probably here to stay.

0:10:20.240 --> 0:10:22.960
<v Speaker 1>No one can here swear in you're in kitchen. The

0:10:23.000 --> 0:10:24.880
<v Speaker 1>problem is you end up like me, eating so much

0:10:24.880 --> 0:10:26.559
<v Speaker 1>peanut butter off the spoon that you have to come

0:10:26.559 --> 0:10:27.000
<v Speaker 1>back to work.

0:10:27.200 --> 0:10:30.600
<v Speaker 2>Exactly. It's a nutrition. The fridge is as is always tempting.

0:10:36.000 --> 0:10:37.400
<v Speaker 1>Max Aitchison, thank you very much.

0:10:37.600 --> 0:10:38.000
<v Speaker 2>Thank you.

0:10:41.920 --> 0:10:45.560
<v Speaker 1>Max Aitchison is The Australian's banking reporter. You can check

0:10:45.600 --> 0:10:48.720
<v Speaker 1>out all his stories right now at The Australian dot

0:10:48.760 --> 0:10:49.560
<v Speaker 1>com dot au