Australia: Political Pressure is no Excuse for Contravening Workplace Laws
Authors: Mariam Chalak & Zoe Nutter
On 24 September 2025, Rangiah J of the Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision on the pecuniary penalties that should be imposed on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (“ABC”) for contravening sections 50 and 772(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FW Act”), when it failed to afford Ms Antoinette Lattouf with procedural fairness and terminated her employment for reasons including that she held a political opinion (see our review of that decision here).
In Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Penalty) [2025] FCA 1174 (“Lattouf penalty case”), Rangiah J ordered the ABC to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $150,000, accepting Ms Lattouf’s submission that the ABC “acted with disdain for her legal rights”. This decision serves as a warning to employers that the Court will condemn “blithely ignor[ing]” an employee’s rights in efforts to appease a lobby group from any side of the political spectrum.
Overview of the Lattouf penalty case
On 25 June 2025, Rangiah J delivered judgment in Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669. The reasons provided in that decision set the foundation for his Honour’s reasons in the Lattouf penalty case, concerning the penalty amounts that should be imposed on the ABC for its breaches of sections 50 and 772(1) of the FW Act.
For context, the ABC’s conduct was twofold. First, its failure to comply with a fair process under clauses 55.2.1 and 55.2.2 of the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2022-2025 (“Enterprise Agreement”) in dealing with allegations of misconduct against Ms Lattouf, concerning the Human Rights Watch post that she made on her Instagram account. Second, its termination of Ms Lattouf’s employment in contravention of both clause 55.4.1(f) of the Enterprise Agreement and section 772(1) of the FW Act.
While the former decision saw Ms Lattouf awarded $70,000 for her non-economic loss pursuant to section 545(1) of the FW Act, the Lattouf penalty case presented the Court with the opportunity to determine an appropriate punishment for the ABC and to outline the reasons why employers should think twice before caving to political pressure at the expense of contravening workplace laws.
Deterrence as a tool of regulation
The object of the civil penalty regime under the FW Act is deterrence. Giving the courts power to order penalties makes both specific and general deterrence available as tools of regulation.
Considering the maximum penalty for a contravention of section 50 or section 772(1) by a body corporate (such as the ABC) was $93,900 at the date of the ABC’s contraventions, Rangiah J highlighted that the ABC was potentially liable for four penalties of $93,900 each, with a theoretical maximum of $375,600.
Potential liability corresponded to the following contraventions:
(a) the breach of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 55.2.1 of the Enterprise Agreement for failing to advise Ms Lattouf of the nature of the alleged misconduct; the process to determine whether the alleged misconduct was substantiated; and the option to be accompanied or represented by another person at any stage of the proceedings (“first contravention of section 50, FW Act”);
(b) the breach of paragraph (f) of clause 55.2.1 of the Enterprise Agreement for failing to give Ms Lattouf an opportunity to respond and/or explain her actions (“second contravention of section 50, FW Act”);
(c) the breach of clause 55.2.2 of the Enterprise Agreement for failing to advise Ms Lattouf that the ABC had formed the view that the alleged misconduct was likely to constitute serious misconduct (“third contravention of section 50, FW Act”); and
(d) both the breach of clause 55.4.1(f) of the Enterprise Agreement and the contravention of section 772(1) of the FW Act for terminating Ms Lattouf’s employment at the ABC in the circumstances (“fourth contravention of sections 50 and 772(1), FW Act”).
Seriousness of the ABC’s conduct
When determining the relevant punishment, a large focus is on the culpability of the perpetrator. Generally, higher penalties are appropriate to ensure effective deterrence when the alleged conduct is particularly serious.
In the Lattouf penalty case, Rangiah J was adamant that any contravention of section 772(1)(f) of the FW Act, which protects employees who are vulnerable to termination for holding or expressing a political opinion, must be regarded as serious.
While Rangiah J found that Mr Christopher Oliver-Taylor (the ABC’s Chief Content Officer) did not intentionally or deliberately contravene section 772(1)(f), nor was he “subjectively reckless” as to whether s 772(1)(f) was contravened, his Honour concluded that Mr Oliver-Taylor was aware that the ABC may have been acting in contravention of the Enterprise Agreement. It was clear this was not an occasion for summary dismissal. There was no breach of a direction and no more than a suspicion of a breach of policy.
Although Mr Oliver-Taylor knew that the ABC had in place an “established process” through which employees were afforded “procedural fairness” where an allegation of misconduct arose, he “blithely ignored” the risk that the ABC would be in contravention of the Enterprise Agreement, forging ahead with a decision to terminate Ms Lattouf’s employment anyway.
Rangiah J found that this conduct was “particularly serious” given the circumstances in which it occurred. His Honour placed great emphasis on the fact that the ABC’s senior managers knew there was an organised political campaign to have Ms Lattouf removed from the ABC, and “surrender[ed] to the lobbyists’ political campaign by sacrificing [her].”
As a “trusted, respected and cherished part of the Australian cultural fabric,” his Honour stressed that the ABC was wrong to emphasise its statutory duty to ensure impartiality at the expense of its equally important statutory obligation of maintaining independence and integrity. The consequence was that the ABC “let down the Australian public” when it “surrendered the rights” of Ms Lattouf to appease a lobby group.
The ABC is required to maintain high standards in its treatment of employees. At a minimum, this means treating its staff in accordance with the requirements of the FW Act. No amount of pressure by lobby groups on social media should influence an employer’s decision on whether to dismiss an employee in such circumstances.
Demonstrating contrition
In terms of the ABC’s subsequent conduct, Rangiah J found that it demonstrated “limited contrition” for the broader effects of its unlawful actions on Ms Lattouf.
Although Ms Deena Amorelli (the ABC’s Chief People Officer) apologised on behalf of the ABC to Ms Lattouf, the ABC’s employees and the Australian public for the contravening conduct, his Honour considered the lack of any investigation into who leaked information about Ms Lattouf’s dismissal to The Australian suggested that this apology had its limits.
SIZE, RESOURCES AND PREVIOUS CONTRAVENTIONS
The Court found that substantial penalties were necessary to ensure the ABC received the message that its conduct was unacceptable. It ought to have been aware from previous contraventions of the FW Act that there was a need for vigilance.
Moreover, an employer’s size and resources will be considered when assessing an appropriate deterrent penalty. Put simply, “the larger the contravener and the greater its financial resources, the greater the penalty required to effect deterrence”.
The Court indicated that it cannot allow employers to regard penalties as an “acceptable price to pay” for avoiding criticism from political lobbyists, the media and sections of the public. The Court noted that the “human consequences” of unlawful termination should not be underestimated.
Final orders
Rangiah J concluded that the requisite penalties should reflect the necessity of achieving specific deterrence, finding it appropriate to impose the following:
| Contravention | Conduct | Amount |
| First contravention of section 50, FW Act | Breach of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 55.2.1 of the Enterprise Agreement for failing to advise Ms Lattouf of the nature of the alleged misconduct; the process to determine whether the alleged misconduct was substantiated; and the option to be accompanied or represented by another person at any stage of the proceedings. | $12,500 |
| Second contravention of section 50, FW Act | Breach of paragraph (f) of clause 55.2.1 of the Enterprise Agreement for failing to give Ms Lattouf an opportunity to respond and/or explain her actions. | $12,500 |
| Third contravention of section 50, FW Act | Breach of clause 55.2.2 of the Enterprise Agreement for failing to advise Ms Lattouf that the ABC had formed the view that the alleged misconduct was likely to constitute serious misconduct. | $50,000 |
| Fourth contravention of sections 50 and 772(1), FW Act | Breach of clause 55.4.1(f) of the Enterprise Agreement and the contravention of section 772(1) of the FW Act for terminating Ms Lattouf’s employment at the ABC in the circumstances. | $75,000 |
| Total | $150,000 | |
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Employees are protected against termination both for holding and expressing political opinions. When considering a response to potential misconduct, employers should seek legal advice to ensure they are not in breach of workplace laws.
- Penalties under the FW Act are intended to punish employers for breaching workplace laws. The Court will condemn employers for “blithely ignor[ing]” an employee’s rights in efforts to appease a lobby group from any side of the political spectrum. Penalty amounts will be set at a level calculated to deter employers from dismissing their employees in response to political pressure.
- Employers may not be able to rely on “advice” or a “request” to refrain from conduct in order to justify terminating an employee and should therefore seek advice before issuing directions. Directions to employees should not only be unequivocal, express and in writing, but also lawful and reasonable.
- Employers are required to maintain high standards in their treatment of employees. Follow clear processes when acting on any suspicion that an employee is in breach of a company policy or guideline. An employer may be required to comply with certain obligations under an employment contract or a relevant enterprise agreement that afford employees a fair and transparent complaints handling process. Employers should seek legal advice before terminating an employee to ensure compliance with these obligations as well as any applicable statutory requirements.
- Employers should act promptly to demonstrate contrition following the breach of a worker’s rights. This includes issuing apologies and public statements, conducting investigations and delivering training to ensure compliance.
If you require employment law advice or assistance, please contact our Harmers legal team at + 61 2 9267 4322
