S1: From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
S1: This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Selinger Morris. It's Monday,
S1: February 10th. There's been a bit going on in the
S1: world of media in Australia. Just last week, a court
S1: case began over the ABC's sacking of high profile presenter
S1: Antoinette Lattouf, while in another case, cricket commentator Peter Lawlor
S1: was told to pack his bags by a commercial radio station.
S1: And the drama is all over what they posted on
S1: social media about the war in Gaza. But what do
S1: these cases mean for everyone else? Can your employer sack
S1: you if you post something about this war? Today, employment
S1: lawyer Cilla Robinson answers this vexed question, but first, media
S1: writer Callum Jaspin brings us up to speed with the
S1: case of the ABC versus Antoinette Lattouf. So, Callum, there's
S1: been two prominent sackings of journalists who've posted on their
S1: social media accounts about the war in Gaza. First off,
S1: you've been in court all week for the Antoinette Lattouf trial.
S1: So can you tell us what this case is all about?
S2: Yeah, Lattouf is arguing she was unlawfully terminated three days
S2: into a five day contract as a fill in presenter
S2: on ABC Radio Sydney around 14 months ago.
S3: ABC Radio Sydney mornings with Antoinette Lattouf.
S4: Filling in for Sarah McDonald.
S5: Later this hour, it's time for radical honesty.
S2: The sacking mostly surrounds a post that she reposted on
S2: her Instagram that quoted a report from Human Rights Watch,
S2: which is a very well known NGO. She had shared
S2: this post with the caption HRW R.W. reporting starvation as
S2: a tool of war. Her lawyers have claimed this week
S2: in the Federal Court that members of a lobby group
S2: had conducted a spectacularly successful campaign to have her taken
S2: off air, which included sending a barrage of complaints to
S2: the ABC's managing director, David Anderson, and the former chair
S2: Ita Buttrose.
S6: Before the court accused of sacking Antoinette Lattouf for her
S6: political beliefs. Mrs. Lattouf, how are you feeling about the case?
S2: The ABC have denied Lattouf was sacked because she was
S2: paid out for the full five days of her contract
S2: at the time, and they've also denied that its most
S2: senior executives were influenced by pro-Israel lobbyists in their decision making.
S1: Okay, so there's obviously been a flurry of coverage about
S1: this case. It's generated heaps of interest, but what are
S1: the key things that have been have been revealed in
S1: the trial over the past week.
S2: Well, we started off on Monday morning with Latif's barrister
S2: Oshi Phagwara putting together the ABC's opening arguments. Um, in
S2: that there were referenced to many, many emails and texts
S2: between the top executives at the ABC in the week
S2: that Latif was on air. This included a lot of
S2: internal emails which revealed that Miss Buttrose, she wrote in
S2: an email to David Anderson, who was the managing director
S2: at that time, she said, I quote, I have a
S2: whole clutch of complaints. Why can't she come down with
S2: the flu or Covid or a stomach upset? We owe
S2: her nothing. The court was told. The ABC's chief content officer,
S2: Chris Oliver Taylor, was also told on the evening of
S2: the first day Latif was on air by David Anderson.
S2: I think we have an Antoinette issue.
S1: And do we know who actually made these complaints to
S1: the ABC?
S2: Yeah. So in David Anderson's cross-examination on Thursday, he said,
S2: or at least he confirmed that he was later told
S2: that these complaints are the nexus of them was in
S2: a WhatsApp group, and it was described as a campaign
S2: because he said that there had been about 40 to
S2: 50 emails that came through that were very similar in
S2: their nature, but slightly different in the way that they
S2: were topped and tailed.
S1: Okay, but Antoinette Lattouf, she's arguing that what she actually
S1: posted during her few days at the ABC, that it
S1: wasn't controversial. Right?
S2: Yeah. She told the court this week that the information
S2: she posted, um, was done under the belief that it
S2: was factual information after she had seen that the same
S2: report that she was referencing, uh, had had been reported
S2: on by both the ABC and the BBC, which I
S2: think most people would consider to be reputable sources. She
S2: had a discussion with the ABC's Sydney content director, Elizabeth Green,
S2: on her first day. And this is a sort of
S2: key part to to the whole case. Um, where the
S2: ABC is arguing she was given a directive not to
S2: post about this particular topic, that being the Israel-Gaza conflict
S2: during her five day stint on air, um, at ABC Sydney,
S2: because there was a risk that the ABC, the ABC's impartiality,
S2: might be brought into question. Now, Lattouf and her team
S2: are arguing, or at least positioning themselves, that this wasn't
S2: a directive. It was more of a suggestion that prompted
S2: a conversation. And the phrase that's been brought up in
S2: court quite a few times is that, green said. It
S2: might be best not to or something to to that effect.
S1: So is this at the crux of the trial then?
S1: You know, whether it was a directive that she not
S1: post about Gaza or whether it was just a suggestion,
S1: because does this come to the heart of whether Antoinette
S1: Lattouf actually breached anything in her contract or ABC policies
S1: by what she's posted online?
S2: Yeah. That's right. So the ABC has said she was
S2: removed or taken off air because she didn't follow a directive. Um,
S2: whereas Antoinette has said in her cross-examination by the ABC's barrister,
S2: Ian Neil, that she came to an agreement with green
S2: that she could post factual information from reputable sources.
S7: I never signed up for this. I didn't sign up.
S7: To be the target of so much hate and death
S7: threats from bots and randoms.
S1: And so also this week, Callum prominent cricket commentator Peter Lawlor.
S1: He was dumped by radio station Sen.
S8: Journalist Peter Lawlor has been dismissed as an SN contributor
S8: over his support online for Palestine Live to Holly Stearns. Now, Holly,
S8: what's happened?
S1: So tell us what's happened there.
S2: Yes, this was a story that came out coming at
S2: a time where there has been a lot of attention
S2: on this. Lawlor's feed includes reposts of news stories about
S2: Israeli attacks in Gaza, and about the release of Palestinian
S2: protesters from Israeli jails. He, of course, is the former
S2: chief cricket writer at The Australian, and he released a
S2: statement on Monday night in which he said he received
S2: two calls from senior management at RSN. Uh, during the
S2: final day, I believe, of the Australia Sri Lanka Test
S2: in Galle, um, to to let him know that he
S2: would no longer be working for them. He said I
S2: was told in one call there was serious organisations making
S2: complaints and another I was told that this was not
S2: the case. Perhaps I misunderstood. I was told there were
S2: accusations I was anti-Semitic, which I strongly object to. I
S2: was told my retweeting was not balanced and insensitive to
S2: one side that many people had complained. Send chief Craig
S2: Hutchinson released a statement after saying, Peter and I have
S2: a different view of the impact of that in the
S2: Australian community, and cricket is a celebration of differences and
S2: nationalities and a place where our Asian audience can escape.
S2: He also said we respect Pete as a journalist and
S2: a long time contributor to the game, but also acknowledged
S2: the fear that many families in our community feel right now.
S1: Well, thank you so much for your time.
S2: Thank you.
S1: After the break, employment lawyer Cilla Robinson on if your
S1: employer can sack you for what you post on social media. So, Cilla,
S1: thank you so much for joining us on the Morning Edition. Now,
S1: obviously the Israel-Gaza war has opened up a minefield, really,
S1: not only in the media but for many companies. So
S1: can you just take us through the legalities at play here?
S1: I mean, can an employer formally reprimand or even sack
S1: an employee for posting about this conflict?
S9: Look, the short answer to your question is yes, but
S9: it depends on the circumstances. Employers can absolutely take action
S9: against employees for their social media posts, including reprimanding them
S9: with informal or written warnings or even terminating their employment.
S9: If an employee's social media activity damages the company's reputation
S9: or breaches company policy. So look, the case law supports
S9: the notion that they, as employers can can monitor employees
S9: social media Use beyond the workplace. I think that's a
S9: really important thing. Um, one of those common misconceptions and
S9: the concept of bringing the company into disrepute is often
S9: cited in these cases. So, for example, if an employee
S9: publicly criticizes their employer, discloses confidential information or says, you know,
S9: derogatory remarks about a colleague, for example, that could absolutely
S9: justify dismissal. However, context is key. Employers basically need to
S9: consider the nature of the post, the employee's role, the
S9: potential impact on the workplace, and whether there's a connection
S9: between the social media context and the person's employment before
S9: deciding to take disciplinary action or terminate their employment. So look,
S9: most medium sized and large organizations have social media policies
S9: in place that guide the employees appropriate use to protect
S9: the employer's interests and reputation, and a breach of such
S9: a Such a policy, of course, where it adversely impacts
S9: the employer's image or reputation, can absolutely lead to disciplinary action,
S9: including dismissal.
S1: And so are journalists in a particularly unique position in that,
S1: you know, there's obviously an expectation that we remain impartial. Like,
S1: are we sort of judged by an even sort of harsher,
S1: I guess, bar?
S9: Absolutely. It's a it's a great question. And journalists operate
S9: in an unusual landscape where their personal social media use
S9: is closely intertwined with their professional responsibilities. And so they
S9: do have this unique role that most employees don't necessarily
S9: have that requires them to maintain impartiality and objectivity. So,
S9: you know, a journalist has to ensure that their personal
S9: interests and beliefs don't undermine that professional integrity. And, you know,
S9: given the digital era that we live in, where social
S9: media is actually the primary news source for many, maintaining
S9: that journalistic integrity is is crucial. So personal political opinions
S9: expressed on social media can absolutely, in some circumstances, conflict
S9: with a journalist's duty to remain unbiased, potentially affecting not
S9: only their credibility but the credibility of of their employer.
S1: Okay. And I really want to broaden this out to,
S1: of course, companies that are outside the media, as I
S1: imagine most listeners would be, because is the situation different
S1: if they're actually a contractor? Because I know that in
S1: the Antoinette Lattouf case, she said, you know, before she
S1: started this short stint working for the ABC as a
S1: fill in presenter, that she thought she would be protected,
S1: that nobody could fire her because she was, quote, an
S1: independent and freelance journalist.
S9: So, look, the situation can differ significantly based on whether
S9: someone is a permanent employee or a or a contractor.
S9: So I mean, as you'd be aware, contractors often have
S9: less job security and fewer protections compared to an employee,
S9: as their relationship essentially with the organisation is typically governed
S9: by the terms of their contract. So policies also social
S9: media policies aren't always expressed to apply to contractors, so
S9: that couldn't be a technical difference for them. But they
S9: are absolutely protected by discrimination laws based on political opinion. Um,
S9: and so, um, you know, employer may have more leeway
S9: to terminate a contract based on the terms that they
S9: are agreed upon. Um, and yes, the Lattouf case, her
S9: belief that the freelance status provided her with greater protections
S9: does highlight a common misconception.
S10: Well, I really want to pick up on something that.
S1: You've just mentioned, which is, you know, the protections that
S1: employees do have against discrimination. So can you talk us
S1: through what protections do exist in the law that do
S1: prevent an employer from sacking an employee because of their
S1: political opinion?
S9: Sure. So as I mentioned, you've got the Fair Work Act.
S9: So that provides protections for employees against adverse action based
S9: on their political opinion. So this protection isn't absolute. Employers
S9: can impose reasonable requirements on social media use to used
S9: to protect their interests and maintain their reputation. So for journalists,
S9: the obligation to remain impartial adds that extra layer of
S9: complexity that we spoke about. So while those political opinions
S9: are protected, if an employee's expression in these opinions conflicts
S9: with their job responsibilities or the employees interests, it can
S9: lead to these challenging situations like we have in in
S9: the case. So I think employers basically have to carefully
S9: balance considerations to ensure that they're not infringing upon the
S9: protected rights of the employees whilst maintaining, you know, their
S9: operational integrity.
S10: So it seems like there's.
S1: Two real key factors, I guess, that are almost potentially
S1: competing against each other. You know, you've got the protection
S1: of political opinion and then you've got the employer's social
S1: media policy. So does one trump the other, like how
S1: is an employee meant to balance this?
S9: It can be a complex issue. And, you know, ordinarily
S9: you think, you know, legislation sits up here or a
S9: policy sits, you know, down here in terms of order
S9: of significance, but it is a complex issue. Social media
S9: policies are designed to protect the company's reputation, while the
S9: legal protections for political opinion safeguard employees rights. So in
S9: these cases where there is a conflict, the specifics of
S9: the situation, including the nature of the post and its impact, um,
S9: will determine which takes precedent, essentially. So employers need to
S9: balance these considerations quite carefully, ensuring that their policies are
S9: reasonable and don't infringe upon protected rights while still safeguarding
S9: their interests. And, you know, you'll see that, you know,
S9: media organizations, social media policies are quite different from your
S9: average organization. It's a more complex issue for them. But
S9: I think, you know, defining boundaries is really important so
S9: that the companies can help employees navigate the line between
S9: personal freedom and professional obligations by just giving them clear
S9: guidelines and training so that employees can understand that their
S9: social media activity, even outside of work hours, in their
S9: in their personal capacity. Can absolutely have professional consequences. And
S9: I think also companies should foster an environment where employees
S9: do feel comfortable expressing themselves. We want people to bring
S9: their full selves to work, but they do need to
S9: understand the potential impact on on their careers as well,
S9: if they're seen to overstep.
S1: And do you have any guidelines? I guess, like, what's
S1: the takeaway here for listeners who may rightly feel strongly
S1: about expressing their opinion on the Israel-Gaza conflict? I mean,
S1: can they express their opinions on this issue, or should
S1: they just not be saying anything on social media?
S9: Oh, look, I think that's the million the million dollar question. Um,
S9: it is it's fraught with risk even for, um, people
S9: that aren't, uh, journos. Um, because quite often, um, you know,
S9: especially for talking about something like LinkedIn, for example, where
S9: your company is, is front and center. So I think
S9: it's important that if people are expressing views that they
S9: are doing so and making clear that it is their
S9: views and not the views of their organization. Um, ideally
S9: their presenting views in a factual way, um, that aren't inflammatory. Employers,
S9: if they're doing the right thing, are looking for impartiality.
S9: They're looking for fairness on how their employees present information,
S9: particularly on contentious issues. But there is always a risk
S9: that even if you're, you know, an accountant or, you know,
S9: a PA or whatever, um, you know, a customer, some
S9: stakeholder might see that and it might cause significant implications
S9: for your business. So I don't think that anyone has
S9: just carte blanche to do whatever they want. Um, you know,
S9: if there's a link to the employer, if there's a
S9: nexus to your employment, there is always a risk that
S9: it could come back to, to bite you.
S1: Well, thank you so much for your time.
S9: My pleasure.
S1: Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Tammy Mills,
S1: with technical assistance by Tom Compagnoni. Our head of audio
S1: is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of
S1: The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy
S1: the show and want more of our journalism. Subscribe to
S1: our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what
S1: we do. Search The Age or Smh.com.au. Subscribe and sign
S1: up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive
S1: summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights
S1: in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes.
S1: I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks
S1: for listening.