Rugg v Ryan: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugg v Ryan (2nd nomination) |
Added {{R to section}} tag to redirect |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Sally_Rugg#Dispute_with_Monique_Ryan]] |
|||
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the discussion has been closed. --> |
|||
{{AfDM|page=Rugg v Ryan (2nd nomination)|year=2023|month=May|day=10|substed=yes|origtag=afdx}} |
|||
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
|||
{{Short description|Australian court case}} |
|||
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2023}} |
|||
{{Use Australian English|date=April 2023}} |
|||
{{Infobox court case |
|||
|name = Rugg v Ryan |
|||
|court = [[Federal Court of Australia]] |
|||
|date decided = <!-- {{start date|yyyy|mm|dd|df=}} --> |
|||
|image = |
|||
|imagesize = |
|||
|imagelink = |
|||
|imagealt = |
|||
|caption = |
|||
|full name = Sally Rugg v The Commonwealth Of Australia As Represented By The Department Of Finance & Anor |
|||
|citations = VID 44 of 2023 |
|||
|transcripts = |
|||
|judges = [[Debra Mortimer|Justice Mortimer]] |
|||
|number of judges = 1 |
|||
|decision by = |
|||
|concurring = |
|||
|dissenting = |
|||
|concur/dissent = |
|||
|prior actions = |
|||
|appealed from = |
|||
|appealed to = |
|||
|subsequent actions = |
|||
|related actions = |
|||
|opinions = |
|||
|keywords = {{Hlist|[[Industrial Relations]]}} |
|||
|italic title = |
|||
}}'''Rugg v Ryan''' is an upcoming case to be heard in the [[Federal Court of Australia]]. The case, between [[Teal independents|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.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Thompson |first=Angus |date=2023-01-30 |title=Activist, adviser Sally Rugg takes boss Monique Ryan to court |url=https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/activist-adviser-sally-rugg-takes-former-boss-monique-ryan-to-court-20230130-p5cgi7.html |access-date=2023-04-26 |website=The Sydney Morning Herald |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-01-31 |title=Monique Ryan staffer Sally Rugg says she was sacked for complaining about work hours |language=en-AU |work=ABC News |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-31/monique-ryan-sally-rugg-federal-court-injunction/101910838 |access-date=2023-04-26}}</ref>[[File:Let's get Tharni and her family home to Biloela - Melbourne rally (51257355739) (cropped).jpg|thumb|Sally Rugg]] |
|||
[[File:Monique Ryan 2023.jpg|thumb|Monique Ryan]] |
|||
{{Redirect category shell| |
|||
== Background == |
|||
{{R to section}} |
|||
After winning the seat of [[Division of Kooyong|Kooyong]] at the [[2022 Australian federal election|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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /> |
|||
{{R from merge}} |
|||
}} |
|||
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 2009|Fair Work Act]].<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-01-30 |title=Monique Ryan taken to court by Sally Rugg |url=https://www.afr.com/rear-window/monique-ryan-taken-to-court-by-sally-rugg-20230130-p5cgh2 |access-date=2023-04-26 |website=Australian Financial Review |language=en}}</ref> 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".<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |last=Karp |first=Paul |date=2023-03-03 |title=Sally Rugg v Monique Ryan: court documents reveal how working relationship fell apart |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/03/sally-rugg-v-monique-ryan-court-documents-reveal-how-working-relationship-fell-apart |access-date=2023-04-26 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> [[Coalition (Australia)|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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Knott |first=Matthew |last2=Sakkal |first2=Paul |date=2023-03-05 |title=Rugg, Ryan wanted to settle 'unreasonable hours' case |url=https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/rugg-ryan-wanted-to-settle-unreasonable-hours-case-20230305-p5cpik.html |access-date=2023-04-26 |website=The Age |language=en}}</ref> |
|||
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.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-03-02 |title=MP Monique Ryan and chief of staff Sally Rugg fail to settle dispute after four-week mediation |language=en-AU |work=ABC News |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-02/sally-rugg-versus-monique-ryan-mediation-fails/102046056 |access-date=2023-04-26}}</ref> |
|||
Rugg lost an injunction on 7 March 2023 to stop her termination as Ryan's chief of staff.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Rugg v Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Department of Finance [2023] FCA 179 |url=https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0179 |access-date=2023-04-28 |website=www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au}}</ref> She had wished to continue carrying out community engagement work under Ryan; however [[Debra Mortimer|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.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Karp |first=Paul |date=2023-03-03 |title=Judge says Sally Rugg returning to work for Monique Ryan may be 'simply unworkable' |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/03/judge-says-sally-rugg-returning-to-work-for-monique-ryan-may-be-simply-unworkable |access-date=2023-04-26 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> |
|||
== 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Carabetta |first=Giuseppe |title=What are 'reasonable' hours? The Ryan-Rugg legal stoush may help the rest of us know |url=http://theconversation.com/what-are-reasonable-hours-the-ryan-rugg-legal-stoush-may-help-the-rest-of-us-know-201093 |access-date=2023-04-27 |website=The Conversation |language=en}}</ref> |
|||
==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.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Karp |first1=Paul |title=Sally Rugg accepts $100,000 to settle workplace dispute with MP Monique Ryan |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/08/sally-rugg-accepts-100000-to-settle-workplace-dispute-with-mp-monique-ryan |website=Guardian Australia |access-date=8 May 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Le Grand |first1=Chip |title=Launched in a blaze of publicity, Ryan v Rugg settles in a whimper |url=https://www.theage.com.au/national/launched-in-a-blaze-of-publicity-ryan-v-rugg-settles-in-a-whimper-20230508-p5d6oz.html |website=The Age |access-date=8 May 2023}}</ref> |
|||
== References == |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
== External links == |
|||
* [https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/rugg-v-commonwealth Court documents, orders, and judgments] |
|||
* [https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/VID44/2023/actions Court case portal] |
|||
[[Category:Federal Court of Australia cases]] |
|||
[[Category:2023 in case law]] |
|||
[[Category:2023 in Australian law]] |
|||
[[Category:Labour law| ]] |
|||
[[Category:Labor relations]] |
|||
[[Category:Industrial relations]] |
|||
{{Australia-law-stub}} |
|||
Latest revision as of 04:43, 13 March 2024
Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|