From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Selinger Morris. It's Monday, February 10th. There's been a bit going on in the world of media in Australia. Just last week, a court case began over the ABC's sacking of high profile presenter Antoinette Lattouf, while in another case, cricket commentator Peter Lawlor was told to pack his bags by a commercial radio station. And the drama is all over what they posted on social media about the war in Gaza. But what do these cases mean for everyone else? Can your employer sack you if you post something about this war? Today, employment lawyer Cilla Robinson answers this vexed question, but first, media writer Callum Jaspin brings us up to speed with the case of the ABC versus Antoinette Lattouf. So, Callum, there's been two prominent sackings of journalists who've posted on their social media accounts about the war in Gaza. First off, you've been in court all week for the Antoinette Lattouf trial. So can you tell us what this case is all about?

From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Selinger Morris. It's Monday, February 10th. There's been a bit going on in the world of media in Australia. Just last week, a court case began over the ABC's sacking of high profile presenter Antoinette Lattouf, while in another case, cricket commentator Peter Lawlor was told to pack his bags by a commercial radio station. And the drama is all over what they posted on social media about the war in Gaza. But what do these cases mean for everyone else? Can your employer sack you if you post something about this war? Today, employment lawyer Cilla Robinson answers this vexed question, but first, media writer Callum Jaspin brings us up to speed with the case of the ABC versus Antoinette Lattouf. So, Callum, there's been two prominent sackings of journalists who've posted on their social media accounts about the war in Gaza. First off, you've been in court all week for the Antoinette Lattouf trial. So can you tell us what this case is all about?

Yeah, Lattouf is arguing she was unlawfully terminated three days into a five day contract as a fill in presenter on ABC Radio Sydney around 14 months ago.

Yeah, Lattouf is arguing she was unlawfully terminated three days into a five day contract as a fill in presenter on ABC Radio Sydney around 14 months ago.

ABC Radio Sydney mornings with Antoinette Lattouf.

ABC Radio Sydney mornings with Antoinette Lattouf.

Filling in for Sarah McDonald.

Filling in for Sarah McDonald.

Later this hour, it's time for radical honesty.

Later this hour, it's time for radical honesty.

The sacking mostly surrounds a post that she reposted on her Instagram that quoted a report from Human Rights Watch, which is a very well known NGO. She had shared this post with the caption HRW R.W. reporting starvation as a tool of war. Her lawyers have claimed this week in the Federal Court that members of a lobby group had conducted a spectacularly successful campaign to have her taken off air, which included sending a barrage of complaints to the ABC's managing director, David Anderson, and the former chair Ita Buttrose.

The sacking mostly surrounds a post that she reposted on her Instagram that quoted a report from Human Rights Watch, which is a very well known NGO. She had shared this post with the caption HRW R.W. reporting starvation as a tool of war. Her lawyers have claimed this week in the Federal Court that members of a lobby group had conducted a spectacularly successful campaign to have her taken off air, which included sending a barrage of complaints to the ABC's managing director, David Anderson, and the former chair Ita Buttrose.

Before the court accused of sacking Antoinette Lattouf for her political beliefs. Mrs. Lattouf, how are you feeling about the case?

Before the court accused of sacking Antoinette Lattouf for her political beliefs. Mrs. Lattouf, how are you feeling about the case?

The ABC have denied Lattouf was sacked because she was paid out for the full five days of her contract at the time, and they've also denied that its most senior executives were influenced by pro-Israel lobbyists in their decision making.

The ABC have denied Lattouf was sacked because she was paid out for the full five days of her contract at the time, and they've also denied that its most senior executives were influenced by pro-Israel lobbyists in their decision making.

Okay, so there's obviously been a flurry of coverage about this case. It's generated heaps of interest, but what are the key things that have been have been revealed in the trial over the past week.

Okay, so there's obviously been a flurry of coverage about this case. It's generated heaps of interest, but what are the key things that have been have been revealed in the trial over the past week.

Well, we started off on Monday morning with Latif's barrister Oshi Phagwara putting together the ABC's opening arguments. Um, in that there were referenced to many, many emails and texts between the top executives at the ABC in the week that Latif was on air. This included a lot of internal emails which revealed that Miss Buttrose, she wrote in an email to David Anderson, who was the managing director at that time, she said, I quote, I have a whole clutch of complaints. Why can't she come down with the flu or Covid or a stomach upset? We owe her nothing. The court was told. The ABC's chief content officer, Chris Oliver Taylor, was also told on the evening of the first day Latif was on air by David Anderson. I think we have an Antoinette issue.

Well, we started off on Monday morning with Latif's barrister Oshi Phagwara putting together the ABC's opening arguments. Um, in that there were referenced to many, many emails and texts between the top executives at the ABC in the week that Latif was on air. This included a lot of internal emails which revealed that Miss Buttrose, she wrote in an email to David Anderson, who was the managing director at that time, she said, I quote, I have a whole clutch of complaints. Why can't she come down with the flu or Covid or a stomach upset? We owe her nothing. The court was told. The ABC's chief content officer, Chris Oliver Taylor, was also told on the evening of the first day Latif was on air by David Anderson. I think we have an Antoinette issue.

And do we know who actually made these complaints to the ABC?

And do we know who actually made these complaints to the ABC?

Yeah. So in David Anderson's cross-examination on Thursday, he said, or at least he confirmed that he was later told that these complaints are the nexus of them was in a WhatsApp group, and it was described as a campaign because he said that there had been about 40 to 50 emails that came through that were very similar in their nature, but slightly different in the way that they were topped and tailed.

Yeah. So in David Anderson's cross-examination on Thursday, he said, or at least he confirmed that he was later told that these complaints are the nexus of them was in a WhatsApp group, and it was described as a campaign because he said that there had been about 40 to 50 emails that came through that were very similar in their nature, but slightly different in the way that they were topped and tailed.

Okay, but Antoinette Lattouf, she's arguing that what she actually posted during her few days at the ABC, that it wasn't controversial. Right?

Okay, but Antoinette Lattouf, she's arguing that what she actually posted during her few days at the ABC, that it wasn't controversial. Right?

Yeah. She told the court this week that the information she posted, um, was done under the belief that it was factual information after she had seen that the same report that she was referencing, uh, had had been reported on by both the ABC and the BBC, which I think most people would consider to be reputable sources. She had a discussion with the ABC's Sydney content director, Elizabeth Green, on her first day. And this is a sort of key part to to the whole case. Um, where the ABC is arguing she was given a directive not to post about this particular topic, that being the Israel-Gaza conflict during her five day stint on air, um, at ABC Sydney, because there was a risk that the ABC, the ABC's impartiality, might be brought into question. Now, Lattouf and her team are arguing, or at least positioning themselves, that this wasn't a directive. It was more of a suggestion that prompted a conversation. And the phrase that's been brought up in court quite a few times is that, green said. It might be best not to or something to to that effect.

Yeah. She told the court this week that the information she posted, um, was done under the belief that it was factual information after she had seen that the same report that she was referencing, uh, had had been reported on by both the ABC and the BBC, which I think most people would consider to be reputable sources. She had a discussion with the ABC's Sydney content director, Elizabeth Green, on her first day. And this is a sort of key part to to the whole case. Um, where the ABC is arguing she was given a directive not to post about this particular topic, that being the Israel-Gaza conflict during her five day stint on air, um, at ABC Sydney, because there was a risk that the ABC, the ABC's impartiality, might be brought into question. Now, Lattouf and her team are arguing, or at least positioning themselves, that this wasn't a directive. It was more of a suggestion that prompted a conversation. And the phrase that's been brought up in court quite a few times is that, green said. It might be best not to or something to to that effect.

So is this at the crux of the trial then? You know, whether it was a directive that she not post about Gaza or whether it was just a suggestion, because does this come to the heart of whether Antoinette Lattouf actually breached anything in her contract or ABC policies by what she's posted online?

So is this at the crux of the trial then? You know, whether it was a directive that she not post about Gaza or whether it was just a suggestion, because does this come to the heart of whether Antoinette Lattouf actually breached anything in her contract or ABC policies by what she's posted online?

Yeah. That's right. So the ABC has said she was removed or taken off air because she didn't follow a directive. Um, whereas Antoinette has said in her cross-examination by the ABC's barrister, Ian Neil, that she came to an agreement with green that she could post factual information from reputable sources.

Yeah. That's right. So the ABC has said she was removed or taken off air because she didn't follow a directive. Um, whereas Antoinette has said in her cross-examination by the ABC's barrister, Ian Neil, that she came to an agreement with green that she could post factual information from reputable sources.

I never signed up for this. I didn't sign up. To be the target of so much hate and death threats from bots and randoms.

I never signed up for this. I didn't sign up. To be the target of so much hate and death threats from bots and randoms.

And so also this week, Callum prominent cricket commentator Peter Lawlor. He was dumped by radio station Sen.

And so also this week, Callum prominent cricket commentator Peter Lawlor. He was dumped by radio station Sen.

Journalist Peter Lawlor has been dismissed as an SN contributor over his support online for Palestine Live to Holly Stearns. Now, Holly, what's happened?

Journalist Peter Lawlor has been dismissed as an SN contributor over his support online for Palestine Live to Holly Stearns. Now, Holly, what's happened?

So tell us what's happened there.

So tell us what's happened there.

Yes, this was a story that came out coming at a time where there has been a lot of attention on this. Lawlor's feed includes reposts of news stories about Israeli attacks in Gaza, and about the release of Palestinian protesters from Israeli jails. He, of course, is the former chief cricket writer at The Australian, and he released a statement on Monday night in which he said he received two calls from senior management at RSN. Uh, during the final day, I believe, of the Australia Sri Lanka Test in Galle, um, to to let him know that he would no longer be working for them. He said I was told in one call there was serious organisations making complaints and another I was told that this was not the case. Perhaps I misunderstood. I was told there were accusations I was anti-Semitic, which I strongly object to. I was told my retweeting was not balanced and insensitive to one side that many people had complained. Send chief Craig Hutchinson released a statement after saying, Peter and I have a different view of the impact of that in the Australian community, and cricket is a celebration of differences and nationalities and a place where our Asian audience can escape. He also said we respect Pete as a journalist and a long time contributor to the game, but also acknowledged the fear that many families in our community feel right now.

Yes, this was a story that came out coming at a time where there has been a lot of attention on this. Lawlor's feed includes reposts of news stories about Israeli attacks in Gaza, and about the release of Palestinian protesters from Israeli jails. He, of course, is the former chief cricket writer at The Australian, and he released a statement on Monday night in which he said he received two calls from senior management at RSN. Uh, during the final day, I believe, of the Australia Sri Lanka Test in Galle, um, to to let him know that he would no longer be working for them. He said I was told in one call there was serious organisations making complaints and another I was told that this was not the case. Perhaps I misunderstood. I was told there were accusations I was anti-Semitic, which I strongly object to. I was told my retweeting was not balanced and insensitive to one side that many people had complained. Send chief Craig Hutchinson released a statement after saying, Peter and I have a different view of the impact of that in the Australian community, and cricket is a celebration of differences and nationalities and a place where our Asian audience can escape. He also said we respect Pete as a journalist and a long time contributor to the game, but also acknowledged the fear that many families in our community feel right now.

Well, thank you so much for your time.

Well, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

After the break, employment lawyer Cilla Robinson on if your employer can sack you for what you post on social media. So, Cilla, thank you so much for joining us on the Morning Edition. Now, obviously the Israel-Gaza war has opened up a minefield, really, not only in the media but for many companies. So can you just take us through the legalities at play here? I mean, can an employer formally reprimand or even sack an employee for posting about this conflict?

After the break, employment lawyer Cilla Robinson on if your employer can sack you for what you post on social media. So, Cilla, thank you so much for joining us on the Morning Edition. Now, obviously the Israel-Gaza war has opened up a minefield, really, not only in the media but for many companies. So can you just take us through the legalities at play here? I mean, can an employer formally reprimand or even sack an employee for posting about this conflict?

Look, the short answer to your question is yes, but it depends on the circumstances. Employers can absolutely take action against employees for their social media posts, including reprimanding them with informal or written warnings or even terminating their employment. If an employee's social media activity damages the company's reputation or breaches company policy. So look, the case law supports the notion that they, as employers can can monitor employees social media Use beyond the workplace. I think that's a really important thing. Um, one of those common misconceptions and the concept of bringing the company into disrepute is often cited in these cases. So, for example, if an employee publicly criticizes their employer, discloses confidential information or says, you know, derogatory remarks about a colleague, for example, that could absolutely justify dismissal. However, context is key. Employers basically need to consider the nature of the post, the employee's role, the potential impact on the workplace, and whether there's a connection between the social media context and the person's employment before deciding to take disciplinary action or terminate their employment. So look, most medium sized and large organizations have social media policies in place that guide the employees appropriate use to protect the employer's interests and reputation, and a breach of such a Such a policy, of course, where it adversely impacts the employer's image or reputation, can absolutely lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal.

Look, the short answer to your question is yes, but it depends on the circumstances. Employers can absolutely take action against employees for their social media posts, including reprimanding them with informal or written warnings or even terminating their employment. If an employee's social media activity damages the company's reputation or breaches company policy. So look, the case law supports the notion that they, as employers can can monitor employees social media Use beyond the workplace. I think that's a really important thing. Um, one of those common misconceptions and the concept of bringing the company into disrepute is often cited in these cases. So, for example, if an employee publicly criticizes their employer, discloses confidential information or says, you know, derogatory remarks about a colleague, for example, that could absolutely justify dismissal. However, context is key. Employers basically need to consider the nature of the post, the employee's role, the potential impact on the workplace, and whether there's a connection between the social media context and the person's employment before deciding to take disciplinary action or terminate their employment. So look, most medium sized and large organizations have social media policies in place that guide the employees appropriate use to protect the employer's interests and reputation, and a breach of such a Such a policy, of course, where it adversely impacts the employer's image or reputation, can absolutely lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal.

And so are journalists in a particularly unique position in that, you know, there's obviously an expectation that we remain impartial. Like, are we sort of judged by an even sort of harsher, I guess, bar?

And so are journalists in a particularly unique position in that, you know, there's obviously an expectation that we remain impartial. Like, are we sort of judged by an even sort of harsher, I guess, bar?

Absolutely. It's a it's a great question. And journalists operate in an unusual landscape where their personal social media use is closely intertwined with their professional responsibilities. And so they do have this unique role that most employees don't necessarily have that requires them to maintain impartiality and objectivity. So, you know, a journalist has to ensure that their personal interests and beliefs don't undermine that professional integrity. And, you know, given the digital era that we live in, where social media is actually the primary news source for many, maintaining that journalistic integrity is is crucial. So personal political opinions expressed on social media can absolutely, in some circumstances, conflict with a journalist's duty to remain unbiased, potentially affecting not only their credibility but the credibility of of their employer.

Absolutely. It's a it's a great question. And journalists operate in an unusual landscape where their personal social media use is closely intertwined with their professional responsibilities. And so they do have this unique role that most employees don't necessarily have that requires them to maintain impartiality and objectivity. So, you know, a journalist has to ensure that their personal interests and beliefs don't undermine that professional integrity. And, you know, given the digital era that we live in, where social media is actually the primary news source for many, maintaining that journalistic integrity is is crucial. So personal political opinions expressed on social media can absolutely, in some circumstances, conflict with a journalist's duty to remain unbiased, potentially affecting not only their credibility but the credibility of of their employer.

Okay. And I really want to broaden this out to, of course, companies that are outside the media, as I imagine most listeners would be, because is the situation different if they're actually a contractor? Because I know that in the Antoinette Lattouf case, she said, you know, before she started this short stint working for the ABC as a fill in presenter, that she thought she would be protected, that nobody could fire her because she was, quote, an independent and freelance journalist.

Okay. And I really want to broaden this out to, of course, companies that are outside the media, as I imagine most listeners would be, because is the situation different if they're actually a contractor? Because I know that in the Antoinette Lattouf case, she said, you know, before she started this short stint working for the ABC as a fill in presenter, that she thought she would be protected, that nobody could fire her because she was, quote, an independent and freelance journalist.

So, look, the situation can differ significantly based on whether someone is a permanent employee or a or a contractor. So I mean, as you'd be aware, contractors often have less job security and fewer protections compared to an employee, as their relationship essentially with the organisation is typically governed by the terms of their contract. So policies also social media policies aren't always expressed to apply to contractors, so that couldn't be a technical difference for them. But they are absolutely protected by discrimination laws based on political opinion. Um, and so, um, you know, employer may have more leeway to terminate a contract based on the terms that they are agreed upon. Um, and yes, the Lattouf case, her belief that the freelance status provided her with greater protections does highlight a common misconception.

So, look, the situation can differ significantly based on whether someone is a permanent employee or a or a contractor. So I mean, as you'd be aware, contractors often have less job security and fewer protections compared to an employee, as their relationship essentially with the organisation is typically governed by the terms of their contract. So policies also social media policies aren't always expressed to apply to contractors, so that couldn't be a technical difference for them. But they are absolutely protected by discrimination laws based on political opinion. Um, and so, um, you know, employer may have more leeway to terminate a contract based on the terms that they are agreed upon. Um, and yes, the Lattouf case, her belief that the freelance status provided her with greater protections does highlight a common misconception.

Well, I really want to pick up on something that.

Well, I really want to pick up on something that.

You've just mentioned, which is, you know, the protections that employees do have against discrimination. So can you talk us through what protections do exist in the law that do prevent an employer from sacking an employee because of their political opinion?

You've just mentioned, which is, you know, the protections that employees do have against discrimination. So can you talk us through what protections do exist in the law that do prevent an employer from sacking an employee because of their political opinion?

Sure. So as I mentioned, you've got the Fair Work Act. So that provides protections for employees against adverse action based on their political opinion. So this protection isn't absolute. Employers can impose reasonable requirements on social media use to used to protect their interests and maintain their reputation. So for journalists, the obligation to remain impartial adds that extra layer of complexity that we spoke about. So while those political opinions are protected, if an employee's expression in these opinions conflicts with their job responsibilities or the employees interests, it can lead to these challenging situations like we have in in the case. So I think employers basically have to carefully balance considerations to ensure that they're not infringing upon the protected rights of the employees whilst maintaining, you know, their operational integrity.

Sure. So as I mentioned, you've got the Fair Work Act. So that provides protections for employees against adverse action based on their political opinion. So this protection isn't absolute. Employers can impose reasonable requirements on social media use to used to protect their interests and maintain their reputation. So for journalists, the obligation to remain impartial adds that extra layer of complexity that we spoke about. So while those political opinions are protected, if an employee's expression in these opinions conflicts with their job responsibilities or the employees interests, it can lead to these challenging situations like we have in in the case. So I think employers basically have to carefully balance considerations to ensure that they're not infringing upon the protected rights of the employees whilst maintaining, you know, their operational integrity.

So it seems like there's.

So it seems like there's.

Two real key factors, I guess, that are almost potentially competing against each other. You know, you've got the protection of political opinion and then you've got the employer's social media policy. So does one trump the other, like how is an employee meant to balance this?

Two real key factors, I guess, that are almost potentially competing against each other. You know, you've got the protection of political opinion and then you've got the employer's social media policy. So does one trump the other, like how is an employee meant to balance this?

It can be a complex issue. And, you know, ordinarily you think, you know, legislation sits up here or a policy sits, you know, down here in terms of order of significance, but it is a complex issue. Social media policies are designed to protect the company's reputation, while the legal protections for political opinion safeguard employees rights. So in these cases where there is a conflict, the specifics of the situation, including the nature of the post and its impact, um, will determine which takes precedent, essentially. So employers need to balance these considerations quite carefully, ensuring that their policies are reasonable and don't infringe upon protected rights while still safeguarding their interests. And, you know, you'll see that, you know, media organizations, social media policies are quite different from your average organization. It's a more complex issue for them. But I think, you know, defining boundaries is really important so that the companies can help employees navigate the line between personal freedom and professional obligations by just giving them clear guidelines and training so that employees can understand that their social media activity, even outside of work hours, in their in their personal capacity. Can absolutely have professional consequences. And I think also companies should foster an environment where employees do feel comfortable expressing themselves. We want people to bring their full selves to work, but they do need to understand the potential impact on on their careers as well, if they're seen to overstep.

It can be a complex issue. And, you know, ordinarily you think, you know, legislation sits up here or a policy sits, you know, down here in terms of order of significance, but it is a complex issue. Social media policies are designed to protect the company's reputation, while the legal protections for political opinion safeguard employees rights. So in these cases where there is a conflict, the specifics of the situation, including the nature of the post and its impact, um, will determine which takes precedent, essentially. So employers need to balance these considerations quite carefully, ensuring that their policies are reasonable and don't infringe upon protected rights while still safeguarding their interests. And, you know, you'll see that, you know, media organizations, social media policies are quite different from your average organization. It's a more complex issue for them. But I think, you know, defining boundaries is really important so that the companies can help employees navigate the line between personal freedom and professional obligations by just giving them clear guidelines and training so that employees can understand that their social media activity, even outside of work hours, in their in their personal capacity. Can absolutely have professional consequences. And I think also companies should foster an environment where employees do feel comfortable expressing themselves. We want people to bring their full selves to work, but they do need to understand the potential impact on on their careers as well, if they're seen to overstep.

And do you have any guidelines? I guess, like, what's the takeaway here for listeners who may rightly feel strongly about expressing their opinion on the Israel-Gaza conflict? I mean, can they express their opinions on this issue, or should they just not be saying anything on social media?

And do you have any guidelines? I guess, like, what's the takeaway here for listeners who may rightly feel strongly about expressing their opinion on the Israel-Gaza conflict? I mean, can they express their opinions on this issue, or should they just not be saying anything on social media?

Oh, look, I think that's the million the million dollar question. Um, it is it's fraught with risk even for, um, people that aren't, uh, journos. Um, because quite often, um, you know, especially for talking about something like LinkedIn, for example, where your company is, is front and center. So I think it's important that if people are expressing views that they are doing so and making clear that it is their views and not the views of their organization. Um, ideally their presenting views in a factual way, um, that aren't inflammatory. Employers, if they're doing the right thing, are looking for impartiality. They're looking for fairness on how their employees present information, particularly on contentious issues. But there is always a risk that even if you're, you know, an accountant or, you know, a PA or whatever, um, you know, a customer, some stakeholder might see that and it might cause significant implications for your business. So I don't think that anyone has just carte blanche to do whatever they want. Um, you know, if there's a link to the employer, if there's a nexus to your employment, there is always a risk that it could come back to, to bite you.

Oh, look, I think that's the million the million dollar question. Um, it is it's fraught with risk even for, um, people that aren't, uh, journos. Um, because quite often, um, you know, especially for talking about something like LinkedIn, for example, where your company is, is front and center. So I think it's important that if people are expressing views that they are doing so and making clear that it is their views and not the views of their organization. Um, ideally their presenting views in a factual way, um, that aren't inflammatory. Employers, if they're doing the right thing, are looking for impartiality. They're looking for fairness on how their employees present information, particularly on contentious issues. But there is always a risk that even if you're, you know, an accountant or, you know, a PA or whatever, um, you know, a customer, some stakeholder might see that and it might cause significant implications for your business. So I don't think that anyone has just carte blanche to do whatever they want. Um, you know, if there's a link to the employer, if there's a nexus to your employment, there is always a risk that it could come back to, to bite you.

Well, thank you so much for your time.

Well, thank you so much for your time.

My pleasure.

My pleasure.

Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Tammy Mills, with technical assistance by Tom Compagnoni. Our head of audio is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism. Subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search The Age or Smh.com.au. Subscribe and sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.

Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Tammy Mills, with technical assistance by Tom Compagnoni. Our head of audio is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism. Subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search The Age or Smh.com.au. Subscribe and sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.