Rugg terminated as unfair dismissal trial against Kooyong MP Monique Ryan forges on

Sally Rugg has been removed from the federal payroll for good, saying she is “disappointed” a judge shut down her bid to keep working for Kooyong MP Monique Ryan.

Kooyong MP Monique Ryan will not be forced to work alongside her chief of staff Sally Rugg ahead of a trial to determine if she breached the Fair Work Act in an extraordinary unfair dismissal case.

Federal Court judge Debbie Mortimer on Tuesday dismissed Ms Rugg’s application for an interim injunction to prevent the Commonwealth from terminating her employment.

From 10am, the activist will no longer be paid by the government.

The case is now expected to go to trial later this year, unless the parties can come to an agreement outside court.

Weeks of negotiations ahead of the interim injunction application hearing on Friday failed to settle the matter.

It’s understood Dr Ryan and Ms Rugg wanted to come to an arrangement to make the highly publicised court litigation go away.

But the Commonwealth, which pays Ms Rugg’s salary, refused to back down.

Neither Ms Rugg nor Dr Ryan were in court for the ruling.

In her 33-page judgment, Justice Mortimer said it would be “wholly unreasonable” to order Dr Ryan to continue working with Ms Rugg while they prepare for a “hotly contested” trial.

Monique Ryan and Sally Rugg in happier times.

“Ms Rugg has made serious allegations against Dr Ryan — allegations affecting her reputation both personally and professionally,” Justice Mortimer said.

“She is seeking compensation directly from Dr Ryan. She is seeking pecuniary penalties be imposed directly on Dr Ryan.

“It is not rational to contend that Dr Ryan can, or should be able to, put all this to one side and resume a constructive working relationship with Ms Rugg in what is on the evidence a pressured, extremely busy and demanding working atmosphere, at the best of times.”

She added that such a situation “might not be in Ms Rugg’s best interests in terms of her health and wellbeing”.

“Even on the most favourable view of Ms Rugg’s submissions about how responsibly they might each try to behave, I do not consider the situation is likely to be tolerable, let alone productive and workable, for either of them,” Justice Mortimer said.

She said Ms Rugg’s suggestions that they could put their differences aside for her to slot back into the chief of staff role had “a significant degree of unreality about them”.

“They appeared to depend in part on a scenario in which Ms Rugg would set her own boundaries about what work she would do and how much work she considered reasonable,” Justice Mortimer said.

“And Dr Ryan would – apparently because of Ms Rugg’s affidavit evidence in this proceeding – elect to modify her expectations accordingly so as to fit in with Ms Rugg’s perspective on these matters.”

She said Ms Rugg did not provide any evidence of a “high sense of willingness and dedication to assisting Dr Ryan” if she was returned to her duties.

“She has given a lot of evidence about her own ambitions, her own desires to be in Canberra,” Justice Mortimer said.

“The evidence about her personal objectives is relevant because it persuades me there is no prospect whatsoever of a cooperative working relationship being restored because – even for the purposes of her own application – Ms Rugg cannot bring herself to express her dedication to assisting Dr Ryan.

“She instead focuses on her own career objectives.”

Sally Rugg leaves court earlier this month. Picture: NCA NewsWire

Sally Rugg outside the Federal Court. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Ian Currie

Justice Mortimer was clear in stating her ruling “says nothing about the prospects of Ms Rugg’s allegations being upheld at trial”.

A key issue at trial, she said, would be whether Ms Rugg was dismissed or, if she resigned.

Justice Mortimer said “claims of this kind invariably involve starkly different accounts being given by the key participants”.

“It is only through the trial process that a court can ascertain whose account it considers reliable,” she said.

In a statement, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers principal Josh Bornstein said Ms Rugg was “disappointed” in the decision.

But Mr Bornstein said they would now focus on preparing for trial.

“The case is at an early stage,” he said.

“As Justice Mortimer observed in her judgment, ‘Ms Rugg’s arguments at trial about contraventions of the FWA may well succeed’.”

He said the trial would consider whether 70-hour working weeks, almost twice the ordinary working week of 38 hours, is unlawful.

“It will also determine Ms Rugg’s allegations of unlawful adverse action,” Mr Bornstein said.

He referred to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s 2021 report, Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, which saw a process of reform to make parliament a safer workplace.

“One of the risk factors compromising workplace safety and highlighted in that report was the long working hours of parliamentary staffers,” Mr Bornstein said.

“The issues to be considered at trial could have far-reaching ramifications for all Australians who work in industries where long hours are expected and normalised.”

Monique Ryan and Sally Rugg in happier times.

It follows the Herald’s Sun report that a second staff member in Ms Ryan’s office allegedly went on stress leave, while another “underperforming” member had their contract ended before the relationship between the Kooyong MP and Ms Rugg soured.

Court documents reveal Ms Rugg had outlined staff issues in Dr Ryan’s office during a review evaluating her performance in the first four months of her employment.

In an affidavit filed to the court, Ms Rugg stated that in that short time, she had “successfully managed a stressed and anxious staff member (electorate office manager) through a very difficult period”.

She alleges this included a “series of gentle performance management discussions, quickly organising and covering a week of stress leave so she could rest and recuperate and redefining her role and our reporting lines so she could rejoin the team set up for success”.

The former head of change.org said she also “concluded the contract of a vulnerable staff member who was underperforming and struggling with the pressures of an office environment in a positive, gentle way”.

Ms Rugg was seeking an interim injunction to stop the Commonwealth from terminating her employment until a trial, which senior legal sources say could cost up to half a million dollars.

Details of drama within the Kooyong MP’s office have emerged in a court stoush. Picture: Gary Ramage

Justice Mortimer struggled to grapple with the idea of Ms Rugg and Dr Ryan returning to work in proximity with each other, pending any trial, after hearing evidence of their volatile relationship in a full-day hearing on Friday.

“I don't think I have seen a case like this,” the experienced judge remarked last week.

“The material is pretty stark about a breakdown in the work relationship.

“How are they to be compelled to continue to work together?”

But Angel Aleksov, representing Ms Rugg, said: “It will require attention by both parties on the ground in doing so.”

Dr Ryan is accused of rolling her eyes and suggesting Ms Rugg was faking her stress leave before bullying her to resign in an “off the record” agreement.

The paediatric neurologist has rejected several claims by Ms Rugg that she was “hostile”.

Dr Ryan submitted it would be “impractical, if not impossible” to have Ms Rugg back in her office.

But Ms Rugg claimed she wanted to return to her job earning $136,000, plus $30,000 in bonuses per year, which she has continued to be paid for despite not working since late December.

Questions have also been raised about Ms Rugg’s involvement in external fundraising, which she claims in her affidavit made her feel “uncomfortable”, during her employment.

But a Department of Finance spokesman said: “As this matter is currently before the courts, it would not be appropriate for the Department of Finance to comment on Ms Rugg’s affidavit”.

In Question Time on Monday, Coalition MPs including Peter Dutton could be heard calling Dr Ryan the “next prime minister” – a reference to claims she had told Ms Rugg she had ambitions of high office.

But the Teal took a swipe back saying “I’ll be there before you are”.