By Paul Sakkal and Broede Carmody
The Federal Court has ruled that activist Sally Rugg was more focused on political life in Canberra than helping her former boss, Monique Ryan, as it rejected her bid to return to the Kooyong MP’s office.
The former chief of staff argued she was pushed out of the office after months of hostile behaviour from Ryan and was seeking to return to her job as she prepared for a broader trial regarding the hours she was expected to work.
Social activist Sally Rugg has failed in her bid to return to the office of Kooyong MP Monique Ryan.Credit: Justin McManus
Federal Court Justice Debra Mortimer dismissed the application in a brief hearing on Tuesday. She agreed with lawyers for Ryan and the Commonwealth, who argued the relationship between the pair had been damaged beyond repair.
Rugg will now stop being paid by the Commonwealth as her lawyers gear up for a trial on whether she was effectively sacked and treated with hostility because of her refusal to work “unreasonable” hours, which the independent MP denies.
Rugg, a same-sex marriage and anti-News Corp campaigner and the former head of change.org, launched action against the Commonwealth and Ryan late last month, alleging she was dismissed from her job as Ryan’s chief of staff for exercising her right to refuse to work unreasonable, additional hours.
Mortimer made clear her ruling on Tuesday did not assess the substantive claims made by Rugg about alleged workplace breaches by Ryan, which Mortimer said may well be successful in a later trial. But she made strong comments about the prospect of Rugg returning to the office, which was the first step in a larger legal bid.
“[Rugg’s return to the MP’s office] would require Ms Rugg and Dr Ryan to be working closely together over a number of parliamentary sitting periods, and for a number of months. The period would likely be longer than the period Ms Rugg worked for Dr Ryan before the initial differences of opinion about Ms Rugg’s performance and working conditions emerged,” Mortimer wrote in her judgement.
“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.”
“The applicant’s submissions to the contrary had a significant degree of unreality about them.”
Justice Debra Mortimer
Mortimer found Rugg had exaggerated elements of her evidence about her relationship with Ryan. She said Rugg’s arguments indicated she was keen to return to political life in Canberra but did not demonstrate a willingness to work for Ryan in Kooyong. Rugg said in her evidence she one day wanted to become an MP.
“It is all about Ms Rugg,” Mortimer wrote. “There could have been evidence of a high sense of willingness and dedication to assisting Dr Ryan … Ms Rugg has not given that evidence. She has given a lot of evidence about her own ambitions, her own desires to be in Canberra.”
Two of Rugg’s social media posts – complaining about her treatment and criticising teal MP’s views on superannuation – displayed poor judgement, Mortimer found.
“This is not a person who wants to return to supporting Dr Ryan.”
Rugg’s lawyer Josh Bornstein said his client was disappointed with the decision but noted Mortimer’s remarks that Rugg’s substantive allegations may be upheld.
“Nevertheless, the case is at an early stage,” the Maurice Blackburn lawyer said in a written statement.
“The focus will now turn to preparing the case for trial, which will consider whether 70-hour working weeks, almost twice the ordinary working week of 38 hours, is unlawful under the [Fair Work Act].”
Noting the Jenkins review into parliamentary culture, Bornstein added that “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”.
Mortimer said a trial, which will likely last for weeks, would not be heard before July. It may hear from other staffers and Ryan’s lawyers intend to present office swipe card data to contradict Rugg’s claim of working 70-hour weeks.
A full trial, Mortimer said, would explore a range of contested facts. These disputes include the nature of the working relationship, how many hours Rugg worked and whether they were reasonable, whether the pair behaved as poorly as the other alleged, and if Rugg was forced to resign.
“There are real divisions in the accounts given by Dr Ryan and Ms Rugg, such that the reliability and credibility of their evidence about what happened during the five months of the employment relationship is going to be critical to the outcome of the proceeding,” she wrote.
Bornstein said in a statement last week that Rugg will seek to add claims of ‘serious contraventions’ of the Fair Work Act against the Commonwealth.
“A serious contravention occurs where the breach of labour standards is knowing and systematic. The penalty for serious contraventions is a maximum of $660,000”.
“The serious contravention claim is made in circumstances in which Dr Ryan publicly acknowledged that her staff were working 70-hour weeks and that it was not safe.”
Both women have sought to avoid a lengthy court trial.
Four sources with direct awareness of the case, who spoke anonymously because of legal sensitivities, said Rugg’s and Ryan’s lawyers had spent weeks attempting to strike a pre-trial settlement, potentially involving compensation.
The Commonwealth – which is also a party to the trial, and is accused of breaching the Fair Work Act by allowing a culture of excessive work – has not agreed to repeated offers to settle, the sources said.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.