The Australian Baseball League did not take adverse action against a team's general manager when it opted not to renew his contract, a court has found.
The former Brisbane Bandits general manager claimed that the Australian Baseball League Pty Ltd engaged in adverse action when it dismissed him for complaining about unpaid entitlements, including car allowance, business-related expenses, reimbursements and commissions he was owed under the contract.
The general manager alleged the League breached s342 of the Fair Work Act after he exercised his workplace rights to inquire about late payments and entitlements and that this contributed to the League's decision to end his contract.
He argued that there was a presumption of continuing employment and that the League took adverse action when it "improperly declined" to renew and extend his employment.
He said the League effectively dismissed him when it ended the contractual relationship.
But Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta held that there was no dismissal.
He said it was clear the League had decided, in accordance with the terms of the contract — which ended on September 22, 2014 — to end the employment relationship.
While the League indicated it "may" extend, renew or offer an alternate contractual arrangement, the proper, and only, construction of that sentence was that such matters were at the League's total discretion, the judge said.
"Therefore, I find that the [general manager] was not dismissed," he said.
"His employment came to an end because the contract of employment itself came to an end. Pursuant to s386(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act this does not constitute a dismissal."
Judge Vasta said the League was under no obligation to renew the contract and that the general manager had no rights to have the contract renewed.
He said the League did not take adverse action against the general manager and dismissed the claims.
GM failed to meet targets
The general manager took up a one year post with the Bandits in September 2013, but argued his working conditions were "less than ideal".In May 2014, the League warned the general manager that he needed to improve his management and performance if he wanted to continue with the club.
During the 2013-2014 season, the Bandits suffered a net loss of $300,000, with the general manager failing to meet a number of targets set out in his contract.
This included achieving merchandise sales targets, which were down 93% and securing corporate sponsorships, down 61%.
The general manager argued that that sponsorship deals required "long lead time efforts" and that he had "nothing to do with" ordering merchandise.
He disputed the League's figures, arguing they were not an accurate reflection of his efforts.
He said his performance should not be measured against these results because he had exceeded other expectations, such as ticketing sales and concessions.
"Superfluous" to team's needs
The League formed the view that the general manager was underperforming and "superfluous" to the Bandits' needs.The Bandits' chief executive officer said the general manager had done "limited" work, was "counter-productive", a "negative influence" on other employees and "holding the club back."
The League gave the general manager one month's notice and told him it would not be renewing the contract.
Judge Vasta accepted that the general manager found himself in a "chaotic" working environment, but it was a "perfect opportunity" for him to demonstrate his managerial skills.
The judge noted that the general manager tended to "minimise" and "explain away" criticisms made of him and did not accept responsibility for his failings.
Instead, the general manager focused on all his achievements and blamed the League for any negatives, Judge Vasta said.
"Unfortunately for the (general manager), he cannot pick and choose what aspects of the franchise he will claim credit for and which ones he will disown."
As a general manager, he must "own" all of the results of the franchise, not just the ones that are favourable to him.
Judge Vasta said there was no adverse action because that the League had complied with its contractual obligations and provided the required notice period.
He said even if the dismissal had constituted adverse action, the evidence established that the general manager was dismissed due to his poor work performance, rather than his complaints and inquiries.
Klein v Australian Baseball League Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] FCCA 1722 (8 November 2016)