Jump to content

Rugg v Ryan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack4576 (talk | contribs) at 07:28, 10 May 2023 (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugg v Ryan (2nd nomination)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rugg v Ryan
CourtFederal Court of Australia
Full case name Sally Rugg v The Commonwealth Of Australia As Represented By The Department Of Finance & Anor
CitationVID 44 of 2023
Court membership
Judge sittingJustice Mortimer
Keywords

Rugg v Ryan is an upcoming case to be heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The case, between independent MP Monique Ryan and activist and Ryan's former chief of staff Sally Rugg, over claims by Rugg that she was fired after complaining about unreasonable work hours.[1][2]

Sally Rugg
Monique Ryan

Background

After winning the seat of Kooyong at the 2022 election, Ryan hired Rugg to be her chief of staff. Rugg was formerly an executive director of Change.org, and was a key voice in the marriage equality debate as campaign director of left-wing activist group GetUp! from 2013 to 2018.[1] Although initially celebrating her job, tweeting "Best first-week-of-a-new-job ever" and "I love my new job so much omg", starting in September 2022, Rugg and Ryan started to disagree on Rugg's work hours and responsibilities, and further incidents occurred in November 2022, which Rugg alleged amounted to hostile conduct in the workplace.[3][4]

On January 21, six months after Rugg's employment, Rugg resigned as chief of staff, and on January 25, Rugg lodged a court application alleging Ryan and the Commonwealth breached general protections under the Fair Work Act.[1][4][5] Rugg has stated that she worked 70-80 hours a week, including weekends, early morning and late nights, 12-hour days on sitting weeks and 8-9 hours in her office on non-sitting days. Ryan disagrees "with any suggestion that I required or expected Ms Rugg to work that number of hours".[3] The Coalition has also alleged that Ryan may have defrauded the Commonwealth by asking Rugg to resign in exchange for five weeks' pay, although evidence tendered to the Federal Court states that Ryan outlined the proposal after stating it verbally a day earlier, and received Departmental approval.[6]

After four weeks of mediation and attempts by both parties to settle, Rugg's legal team stated that the talks had failed, stating, "Mediation has failed to resolve the legal dispute between Sally Rugg, the Commonwealth and Dr Monique Ryan," and that they intended to add further breaches of the Fair Work Act to the case.[7]

Rugg lost an injunction on 7 March 2023 to stop her termination as Ryan's chief of staff.[4] She had wished to continue carrying out community engagement work under Ryan; however Justice Debra Mortimer disagreed, questioning how “two people who have different views” about what reasonable hours are can be “ordered to continue to work together", and stating it would be "simply unworkable" for Rugg to remain employed under Ryan. By the time of the injunction an acting chief of staff, Nina O'Connor, had already been "seconded" from Climate 200 and started work in Ryan's office, meaning that Rugg may not have had a job to return to.[4][8]

Significance

Under the Fair Work Act, employers cannot request or require full-time employees to work in excess of 38 hours a week, unless "the additional hours are reasonable". As the case lies largely upon this clause, the case will highlight the legal question of what is considered a 'reasonable' amount of overtime, as there is no clear definition of this in Australian workplace law.[9]

Settlement

On 8 May 2023, Rugg accepted a settlement of approximately $100,000 with no admission of fault by Ryan or the government, with all parties paying their own costs.[10][11]

References

  1. ^ a b c Thompson, Angus (30 January 2023). "Activist, adviser Sally Rugg takes boss Monique Ryan to court". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
  2. ^ "Monique Ryan staffer Sally Rugg says she was sacked for complaining about work hours". ABC News. 31 January 2023. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
  3. ^ a b Karp, Paul (3 March 2023). "Sally Rugg v Monique Ryan: court documents reveal how working relationship fell apart". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
  4. ^ a b c d "Rugg v Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Department of Finance [2023] FCA 179". www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au. Retrieved 28 April 2023.
  5. ^ "Monique Ryan taken to court by Sally Rugg". Australian Financial Review. 30 January 2023. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
  6. ^ Knott, Matthew; Sakkal, Paul (5 March 2023). "Rugg, Ryan wanted to settle 'unreasonable hours' case". The Age. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
  7. ^ "MP Monique Ryan and chief of staff Sally Rugg fail to settle dispute after four-week mediation". ABC News. 2 March 2023. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
  8. ^ Karp, Paul (3 March 2023). "Judge says Sally Rugg returning to work for Monique Ryan may be 'simply unworkable'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 April 2023.
  9. ^ Carabetta, Giuseppe. "What are 'reasonable' hours? The Ryan-Rugg legal stoush may help the rest of us know". The Conversation. Retrieved 27 April 2023.
  10. ^ Karp, Paul. "Sally Rugg accepts $100,000 to settle workplace dispute with MP Monique Ryan". Guardian Australia. Retrieved 8 May 2023.
  11. ^ Le Grand, Chip. "Launched in a blaze of publicity, Ryan v Rugg settles in a whimper". The Age. Retrieved 8 May 2023.


Stub icon

This article related to Australian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rugg_v_Ryan&oldid=1154098832"