According to a report from Georgina Robinson in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, the Australian Rugby Union have had an application to permanently stop former staffer Di Patston’s claim of adverse action under the Fair Work Act.
According to Robinson, Patston is claiming for compensation, having engaged a personal injury law firm to represent her in the case. It seems that the ARU will fight the claim, which relates to her treatment when she was working at the ARU last year.
The ARU had applied to have Patston’s claim quashed, but this was rejected by Judge Angelo Vasta in Brisbane’s Federal Circuit Court on Monday.
Robinson reports that the matter will now be taken to a hearing on June 2 unless the two parties can settle out of court.
Robinson says Patston was not present at court, and has applied for a breach of s351 under the Fair Work Act.
Kurtley Beale is at the heart of the drama, having sent an offensive text message about Patston to her phone.
According to internal investigations conducted by the ARU, the findings of which were laid out in their summary of events towards the end of last year, Beale did send one text, but was not the sender of a second, more offensive text massage.
The findings in relation to Beale from the ARU were:
1. Kurtley Beale has been found to contravene the Code of Conduct, in that he sent an offensive photograph to an ARU employee and also to members of the Waratahs Rugby team.
2. It is important to note that the evidence did not establish that a second, and more offensive, text and photograph had been sent by Mr Beale. Nonetheless, we consider there has been a serious violation of the Code of Conduct.
3. Mr Beale has conceded that he has foolishly breached the Code. He has however shown remorse both publicly and to the ARU employee concerned, and this is taken into account.
4. The Tribunal has discretion as to the sanction to be imposed for the breach. Taking into account the conduct, the unpleasant consequences that this episode has caused for the ARU Employee and Mr Beale, Mr Beale’s contrition, and the fact that he has effectively been suspended from recent matches already, we consider that a substantial fine is the appropriate sanction. The fine imposed will be $45,000.
Beale was then fined an additional $3,000 on top of this.
The identity of the second texter was never revealed.
Patston has spoken to the media since the ordeal, and has admitted it took a large toll on her emotionally.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Probably right. Because if this was a normal person, Patson would not have had her reputation tarnished by false claims and her character dragged through the mud, both very publicly making it difficult for her to seek alternative employment.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
One could argue that since Beale has shown "contrition" over his drink driving offence, his incident with the bouncer, the late night Hungry Jacks run, his fight with Cooper Vuna and Gareth Delve and his subsequent drinking whilst on an alcohol ban due to the previous offence, that it shows this were not acceptable or the norm but rather an aberration. Yet these events continue to occur.
Harry Jones
Expert
If there is systematic abuse That needs to be rooted out I was under the impression This was an isolated KB-DP thing
Harry Jones
Expert
Well, anyone who thinks they can verbally abuse a woman in my family and get away with it would have a rude surprise. I'm only talking about the business of making money from it; and wondering if that's the right approach.
soapit
Guest
saw a show that claimed the second shooter was a secret service guy whose weapon went off accidentally in the panic
grapeseed
Guest
So abuse is something that has to occur multiple times to meet your threshold for the definition? Sounds like you are keen to mount a semantic argument to mitigate the profound effect a single (proven) incident like this can have. The fact is, Patston suspected that many people in her workplace had received these messages about her (she was right) and would have suspected that there were many more (who knows, the other Wallabies were not investigated). Enjoy your exercise in mitigation.
grapeseed
Guest
"If it was systemic, Beale would have not shown contrition, would not have apologised to Patston, and she wouldn’t have accepted the apology" That is pretty big assumption, and not logically conclusive. I would have investigated to make sure rather than conclude "when people apologise for something they are caught red handed doing, it means that it is not widespread." Especially as, in my experience, the one time a person gets caught doing something it is rare that it just so happens to be the first, last and only time it has been done. Especially in the manner he was caught, through a slip of the thumb. Beale only admitted to what could be proven, I would have investigated to ensure the culture indeed met my assumptions.
In Brief
Guest
If it was systemic, Beale would have not shown contrition, would not have apologised to Patston, and she wouldn't have accepted the apology. These actions show that the text messages were not acceptable or the norm but rather an abhoration.
In Brief
Guest
Abuse? Was this an ongoing, systematic culture of abuse in camp Wallaby? I don't think so. It's very different to what we have seen in the army with the jedi sex abuse case. This was very much an isolated incident.
In Brief
Guest
I reckon it's the other way around. If this was a normal person involved, the case would have been dropped. A one off text message while inappropriate does not legally constitute bullying or harassment .
formeropenside
Guest
but pressured the ARU to contract him for 2015, so that he was not lost to the Tahs - and Beale is important to the Tahs, just not the Wallabies.
formeropenside
Guest
Depends how you define major law firm. None of the ones I know would do it for no fee. Or maybe I am confusing major with reputable.
AndyS
Guest
Actually I would have said people who leave in protest (rightly or wrongly) certainly could be real fans, but ones who value their views above the team. However by definition anyone who is only attracted to the game because of Beale or any player is only a real fan of theirs, not a real fan of rugby. Personally, I can't say I've ever met anyone who only attended a match just to see a particular player...
Stray Gator
Roar Rookie
Really? Thanks, good to know, and saved me from having to do more digging. You're a good bloke, for a Kiwi lawyer. ;)
The truth
Guest
Would you consider it overdone if this was your partner or daughter being on the end of this abuse?
Harry Jones
Expert
Definitely don't want anyone miserable or bullied. This just seems a bit overdone; but I may be wrong
AussieKiwi
Guest
The no costs provisions in s. 570 of the FW Act also apply in the Federal Court, not just in the FWC.
AussieKiwi
Guest
No Barrister that I know of charges $3,000.00 per hour. The standard for a senior junior is a daily rate of $3,000 - $5,000 per day. Silks $6000 - $10,000 per day. Hourly rate would be roughly in proportion to that, slightly higher. But yeah it won't be cheap. As others have pointed out, if it is a claim under the FW Act, there will generally be no order for costs so even if ARU wins it will be significantly out of pocket. On the little I know of the facts it would be quite difficult to get up on a general protections claim under the FW Act, it is a very specific type of claim which the High Court has thoroughly trashed in recent times.
Stray Gator
Roar Rookie
ZG - you're off the mark about a costs order. Generally speaking, a person must bear their own FWC costs. Costs are only (and very rarely) ordered if an application or response was made vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or without reasonable prospect of success. It's only if a matter really gets out of hand that it can end up in the Federal Court. Then an adverse costs order becomes a real risk facts. But only then. As RT points out, the FWC is a very different jurisdiction to the courts.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
They are assuming this would be all taken care of by the ARU's full time employee General Counsel. Which it would not unfortunately.