‘No paper trail’: teal Monique Ryan’s turn for integrity test

Teal MP Monique Ryan is facing allegations she told her chief of staff Sally Rugg she could not ‘have a paper trail’ detailing an ‘off-book’ deal to get the left-wing activist out of her office.

Monique Ryan outside court on Friday. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Ian Currie

Teal independent Monique Ryan is facing allegations she told her chief of staff Sally Rugg she could not “have a paper trail” ­detailing an “off-book” deal to get the left-wing activist out of her ­office.

In affidavits tendered in their Federal Court battle on Friday, Ms Rugg also accused the Kooyong MP of making sarcastic comments after she took stress leave, and saying she needed staff who worked harder than Ms Rugg ­because “I want to be the prime ­minister one day”.

Ms Rugg’s allegations against Dr Ryan — who was elected on a platform of transparency — have prompted workplace law experts to question if she is in breach of the Fair Work Act.

Dr Ryan has dismissed her comments about wanting to be prime minister as a joke, and declared there was “no subterfuge” in her termination agreement with Ms Rugg, pointing to an email she sent the following day to Ministerial and Parliamentary Services (MAPS) and Ms Rugg that detailed the deal.

In her affidavit, Ms Rugg, who is still technically employed and receiving a taxpayer-funded salary more than two months after ceasing work, says Dr Ryan offered six weeks’ pay and a positive reference, in exchange for her ­resignation and a non-­disparagement agreement.

Ms Rugg states in the documents tendered in court: “I said ‘well, if I’m going to consider this, I need you to put this in writing. I need to know the details of what you’re offering’. Dr Ryan became even angrier and said ‘you know I can’t put this in writing! I can’t have a paper trail!’.”

Arnold Bloch Leibler partner Bridget Little, who leads the firm’s workplace advisory practice said not providing notice of termination in writing was a breach of the Fair Work Act. “It is a minimum requirement for most employees,” Ms Little said.

“I often see a party bring a broader claim, for example ­adverse action, and then tack on a more technical breach of this kind to the proceeding.”

However, Ms Little said it was not uncommon for employers not to provide written notice.

‘If there are active separation discussions, and either party wants to keep their options open, it is common not to commit to a termination in writing.”

Dr Ryan said the only reason she had initially refused to put the deal in writing was that there was “no MAPS form” on which to do so.

“There was no subterfuge. The reason I didn’t put it in writing was that there was no form for that,” said Dr Ryan, citing an email she sent the next day, which is included in Ms Rugg’s affidavit.

“The email the next day reflects the fact that MAPS was aware of and approved the plan and that I’d told Sally that the following day,” Dr Ryan said.

“She seems to be making out that I was being sneaky or trying to do something in a way that wasn’t entirely open. That’s not true.

 

“MAPS agreed that this is a reasonable arrangement, and in fact when I put paperwork through initially as her resigning that day, they advised to change it to the 31st of January so she was paid up to that date.”

Ms Rugg is seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent the termination of her employment, in what her lawyers say is a test case that could have significant implications in defining “reasonable” working hours in parliament and offices across the nation.

The trial comes after four weeks of attempted mediation between the parties failed to resolve their dispute, and after Maurice Blackburn Lawyers principal Josh Bornstein said on behalf of Ms Rugg late on Thursday that his client would seek to add claims of ­“serious ­contraventions” of the Fair Work Act to her case against the commonwealth. If successful, the case could cost ­taxpayers and employers millions of dollars.

Ms Rugg’s barrister, Angel Aleksov, argued in Friday’s preliminary hearing that his client was not “work shy” but was simply being asked to work hours that “ordinary human intelligence” would indicate were “not reasonable” in light of her employment package, worth more than $160,000.

“It’s a matter of ordinary human experience that a salary of $130,000-ish, even with a top-up of $32,000, does not justify a person working 70-plus hours and on weekends, week in, week out – it just cannot,” Mr Aleksov said.

Ms Rugg also revealed in ­affidavits that Dr Ryan had issued her with a formal warning after she flew from Canberra to Melbourne while Covid positive, and said her then-boss had declared an ­ambition to “be the prime minister one day”.

“Dr Ryan said ‘I want to be the prime minister one day, and I need to know my staff are prepared to work hard for me … If you are not prepared to work as hard as I want, I will need to consider my options’,” Ms Rugg claimed.

“Dr Ryan then told me that she was writing me a formal warning for travelling home when I had Covid, and stated that it had been illegal and a media or brand risk. I said that my GP had told me it was best to isolate at home and that it was not against the law at that time to travel with Covid,” Ms Rugg said.

In relation to Dr Ryan’s response to her taking stress leave in mid December, Ms Rugg claimed: “Dr Ryan rolled her eyes and said ‘yeah right, stress leave’ and made air quotes with her hands.”

She said Dr Ryan was frustrated and said “look, I’m going to terminate your employment”.

Outside court, Dr Ryan said comments attributed to her saying she wanted to be prime minister were “of course” a joke.

“I’m someone who jokes about lots of things much of the time, but I have a serious job, and my serious job is my responsibility to the electorate of Kooyong,” Dr Ryan said.

Judge Debra Mortimer adjourned the case until 9.30am on Tuesday, when she is expected to set a date for the broader trial, which lawyers expect could drag on for as much as six months.