Ita Buttrose’s emails “hammering” executives with complaints about Antoinette Lattouf’s social media presence were influential in her sacking, the federal court has heard in closing submissions.
Lattouf’s barrister, Oshie Fagir, argued the former chair was one of four ABC figureheads who played a pivotal role in the removal of the casual host from air, including the formal decision-maker, Chris Oliver-Taylor, the chief content officer at the broadcaster.
Fagir said Buttrose’s “attitude never wavered at any point” and her “conduct had a material effect on the ultimate outcome”. He said Buttrose considered Lattouf an activist who should never have been hired.
“The reason that she gave for sending the emails … was to teach Mr Oliver Taylor a lesson, I’m paraphrasing, ‘to make him feel some pain, because he was responsible for this untenable position’.”
During her testimony, Buttrose told the court that the managing director, David Anderson, said she should forward the emails to Oliver-Taylor to teach him the “folly” of hiring people without adequate checks.
Fagir spent Thursday summing up the the applicant’s argument in the unlawful termination case and Friday will see the ABC’s reply.
“We say that Mr Anderson and Mr Oliver-Taylor were decision-makers in the conventional sense that they exercised authority to dismiss Ms Lattouf, and that Ms Buttrose and Latimer were decision-makers in the broader sense … being people who materially influence the decision to dismiss,” Fagir said.
Fagir said Lattouf’s Human Rights Watch post was a “pretext” for moving against her and it was an “utterly abnormal” move for Oliver-Taylor to make.
“Mr Oliver-Taylor latched on to the post as a pretext to deliver that which he knew the managing director and the chair wanted,” Fagir said.
Lattouf was let go after three days into a five-day fill-in stint on ABC Radio Sydney’s Mornings program when she shared the post that said Israel had used starvation as a “weapon of war” in Gaza.
As well as the pressure from Buttrose, Oliver-Taylor was subjected to Anderson “demanding assurances that a situation like this never arises again”, and there were threats of disciplinary action against the executive who hired Lattouf, Steve Ahern.
“And he uses [the Human Rights Watch post] as a pretext to deliver what he wanted and what the organisation want too,” Fagir said.
Fagir argued that the ABC’s reasoning, “in relation to the direction and the potential breach of policy makes absolutely no sense”.
Lattouf denies she was banned from posting on the Gaza conflict while working at the ABC.
‘Lattouf’s race was a reason for her dismissal’
Fagir said the applicant’s case is that she was sacked for her political opinion on Gaza and was given “no direction” by the ABC not to post about the Israel-Gaza conflict.
“Ms Lattouf was removed from air … not only [because] she held and manifested particular views, but that she did so in circumstances where she herself was of Lebanese heritage. We absolutely maintain and urge the court to find that Ms Lattouf’s race was a reason for her dismissal.”
Under the Fair Work Act an employer may not take adverse action against an employee because of their political opinion or race.
Fagir said Lattouf was hired to present a light show and “as soon as she appears on air, she is the subject of a lobbying campaign, the purpose of which is to remove her from air”.
Fagir said the court should give no heed to the evidence of Oliver-Taylor as he was a witness of “no credit” and there was no material that supported his evidence that Lattouf was given a “direction” not to post.
Oliver-Taylor “knew that no direction had been given to Ms Lattouf not to post anything controversial about the Israeli-Gaza conflict”, Fagir said.
Instead, Justice Darryl Rangiah should accept the evidence of Lattouf’s line manager, Elizabeth Green, and if he did accept her evidence it is “game over for the ABC”.
Fagir said it was Green’s evidence that Lattouf was not given an explicit direction not to post at all on social media about the Israel-Gaza war during her planned five-day stint on ABC radio.
Fagir said the question of whether Lattouf was given a “directive” by ABC bosses not to post on social media, which she then breached by sharing the Human Rights Watch post, or if it was merely suggested to her that she “keep a low profile” on social media was central to the case.
Rangiah also told the court he planned to ask lawyers for the ABC “about the relevance of the apparent leaking of the information” about Lattouf’s case to The Australian, “and whether that factors in to questions of compensation”.
An article about Lattouf’s removal from ABC Sydney radio was published by The Australian shortly after she was called in and told she could not return to finish her two shifts.
Article by:Source: Amanda Meade Media correspondent
