Trevallyn cricketer’s anti-discrimination case against TCL dismissed

A northern Tasmanian female team was disqualified from a prelim over player selection rules, which one player claims is due to a different set of rules to the men’s side.

A discrimination complaint against the Tasmanian Cricket League has been dismissed.

A discrimination complaint against the Tasmanian Cricket League (TCL) has been dismissed after the complainant’s no-show at the court hearing.

Trevallyn Cricket Club’s female Boom team player Charmaine Whyman made a complaint after the club’s Blue Division One side was disqualified from the preliminary final.

The complaint was first lodged with the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner (ADC) in March this year, soon after the team’s preliminary final disqualification.

Ms Whyman claimed the decision was a result of a TCL rule that stipulated a female player was only registered to play for a specific team, not the club.

She alleged it differed from the men’s rules – where players can play for any eligible team at their registered club – claiming that was the grounds for discrimination on the basis of gender under the Anti-Discrimination Act.

She said the disqualification, that stopped the team playing in its grade final, was due to “prejudice for being female members of a club”.

Ms Whyman also alleged that if the TCL was found to have breached the Anti-Discrimination Act, it had not “complied with its obligations” as listed in the Act.

The ADC referred this complaint to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) for a hearing, which was before TASCAT senior member Robert Winter.

However, when the time came for the matter to be heard at a directions hearing, Ms Whyman did not return the calls for the telephone conference on three occasions.

On the final hearing day of December 5, Ms Whyman forwarded an email advising that she was not able to come to an agreement in the conciliation process and could not afford a lawyer meaning she would have to “unfortunately withdraw from any further process”.

This final email was sent just 46 minutes before the hearing where her complaint was dismissed for non attendance.

Mr Winter said while it was “ unfortunate that I did not possess, nor was I otherwise aware of this email before the directions conference commenced”, he still continued with his order that the complaint be dismissed.