Former SBS reporter Scott McIntyre lodges legal action over Anzac Day tweet sacking
McIntyre
Sacked SBS sports journalist Scott McIntyre has launched a discrimination case against the broadcaster claiming it did “not follow due process” when it fired him.
The sports reporter has enlisted the services of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers to contest the sacking, with the law firm saying the case will hinge on whether SBS overstepped its powers by axing the journalist “without a proper investigation”.
It will also argue that McIntyre was entitled to air his political opinion without risk of losing his job.
McIntyre was fired after he sent a series of Anzac Day tweets which management described as “inappropriate and disrespectful” towards Anzac troops, with SBS managing director Michael Ebeid saying McIntyre had compromised the “integrity of the network and audience trust”.
McIntyre’s tweets included one which read: “Remembering the summary execution, widespread rape and theft committed by those ‘brave’ Anzacs in Egypt, Palestine and Japan”.
In a statement, Maurice Blackburn said: “The application made to the Fair Work Commission claims that SBS breached its policies, including its Code of Conduct when the broadcaster dismissed Mr McIntyre on 26 April 2015.
“The case is not about whether Mr McIntyre’s opinions are correct or not. It will focus on whether the views expressed by Mr McIntyre constituted political opinion and whether SBS terminated his employment for expressing these views.
“Section 351 of the Fair Work Act protects employees from adverse action by their employer (including sacking) if they express political opinion.”
The law firm will argue that SBS took action “without a proper investigation and consideration of all relevant issues”.
“It will be contended that Mr McIntyre had an unblemished work record and if a proper process had been followed he would still be employed in his chosen career.”
SBS declined to comment on the claim.
McIntyre’s sacking sparked an online petition urging SBS to reinstate the sports reporter.
The calls came as a number of journalist questioned the decision to dismiss McIntyre as gagging his right to express opinion.
Fairfax Media journalist Geoff Winestock challenged the company to sack him after tweeting Anzacs are “racist yobs” describing Anzac Day as a “death cult”.
Steve Jones
I hope he is successful.
He should not have been sacked.
In journalism, truth has always been a compelling defence.
There is ample historical,evidence to support the view he expressed.
User ID not verified.
Good.
User ID not verified.
SBS should settle out of court by rehiring him. He was sacked amid all the hype over the Anzac anniversary and now that is over he should get his old job back.
User ID not verified.
How do I distinguish his cultural opinion apart from that of SBS?
User ID not verified.
@Bob C
It’s quite simple: If the opinion is made from his personal Twitter account then it’s his personal opinion. If it’s broadcoast on SBS television while he’s presenting a segment then it’s that of SBS.
User ID not verified.
@Nate
There are social media guidelines which Government organisations follow, it appears he went rogue. There is no such thing as a private account when you are a public figure, there will be an arguable link to SBS’s reputation and associated profile.
The comments as delivered around ANZAC Day were disrepectful to current, former and deceased serving members and their families.
There is merit both ways. The act whilst industrially unsound, was socially responsible. I will very keenly be following this one and would be happy to hear opposing viewpoints.
User ID not verified.
What a hero. Nek minute he’ll tell us that Ned Kelly was a bushranger.
User ID not verified.
That’s not correct unfortunately Wayne – these days there isn’t such a thing as a “personal” account. The general rule is that if a reasonable person can draw a link between a person and the company they work for then anything they post on their own page can be considered a representation for their employer.
Its to stop situations whereby say someone very high profile cant make a comment on their page and turn around and plead innocent because it was on their personal page.
Putting a disclaimer on your personal page saying that your views are separate to those of your employer also doesn’t cut the mustard.
The whole thing is very tough on journalists especially when they are encouraged to continually use social media.
User ID not verified.
“The general rule these days”? Can you cite authority for that?
User ID not verified.
McIntyre’s sense of entitlement is breathtaking! What a disrespectful yob ! You’re a journo. You are not a 9-5 x 5 days. If you were a columnist like Bolt,Devine or Carlton when he had a gig, and making your living from expressing a view, as opposed to reporting, it is expected that view is shaped by specific reference to an incident, action, person or event etc whether we agree with it or not. Instead this was just a highly offensive scattergun rant. Of course you can say what you want but you take the consequences.
User ID not verified.
“The case is not about whether Mr McIntyre’s opinions are correct or not.”
Clearly Maurice Blackburn Lawyers know they haven’t a leg to stand on when it comes to the accuracy of McIntyre’s remarks. So that’s the first thing to jettison. They’ll try for procedural unfairness. Ergo, the whole thing will be argued on lawyerly points of not much relevance to what got him into trouble in the first place.
User ID not verified.
@Bob C– surely it is dangerous territory to summarily sack journos because someone (in this case Turnbull) considered what they said was “offensive”. It this were to take hold there would be very few genuine journos working by the end of next week. Most quality journalism invariably has someone claiming “offense”. (Am I correct Mumbrella – a number of articles here would have had a several self-interested parties claiming wounded pride and “offense” at what has been published?)
John Stuart Mill famously spoke of two types of constraints on freedom.
The first is the obvious one, when the state censors by providing for laws against speech. The second is less obvious, but Mill believed it to be just as dangerous.
“There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling,” Mill argued, “against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent.”
Writing in The Conversation, Professor Philip Dwyer, Director of the Centre for the History of Violence, School of Humanities and Social Science at University of Newcastle, demonstrates academics have been making the same case as MacIntyre re the ANZAC myth for the last 70 or so years. But only MacIntrye, using the vehicle of 3 tweets, has managed to achieve “cut thru” re the issue.
The MSM and the posturing pollies dont want the uninformed public to question the jingoism and faux patriotism of the ANZAC myth. Once the public questions this, they may extend themselves to question why the US is increasing its military presence in Darwin, and why Australia is sending MORE troops to the Middle East – with no real hope of achieving anything other than more dead Aussie soldiers.
User ID not verified.
If Bolt had said the same thing, none of you garden-variety lefties would be defending him.
Hypocrites.
User ID not verified.
Bob C
It would be disrespectful to current, former and deceased serving members of the military and their families not to tell the truth. The question that needs to be addressed is ‘Was there truth in what Scott McIntyre wrote?’
User ID not verified.
And yet, Lindsay, that’s exactly the conversation McIntyre’s lawyers are going to avoid at all costs. For good reason too.
User ID not verified.
@A Lawyer
APSC circular 2012/1 is government guidance to government entities. It is not an authority as you sought.
User ID not verified.
Truth? But what he said contained historical errors. ANZACs did not drop the atom bomb. Japan waged a brutal war of aggression against its neighbours prior to the Allies involvement and should never be painted as a “victim”, which is exactly what Scott McIntyre was trying to do.
User ID not verified.
Sorry Keep him sacked, but nobody said ANZACs dropped a bomb on anyone. What was McIntyre wrote on the bomb subject was, “Not forgetting that the largest single-day terrorist attacks in history were committed by this nation & their allies in Hiroshima & Nagasaki.” Now I would not agree with that view, but there are many who do. You might also note McIntyre does not even suggest Japan was not an aggressor. That is obviously another subject which he may or may not hold views on.
User ID not verified.
I do think employers look too much at social media but on this occasion his rant was highly inappropriate and he deserved to get punted.
He is known as ‘that SBS soccer guy’ and yes I watch a lot of soccer.
Whether these were his comments or not his employer will get caught up in this too.
If you are a freelance leftie – go nuts … but he does represent views of SBS whether he likes it or not.
Sometimes in social media feeds you see ‘views are my own’ but in Scotty’s case I think he overstepped the mark with his wild rant.
Start a blog, Scotty…
User ID not verified.
Your can’t hide poor behaviour behind abstract phrases in the fine print of a law no one has read.
You were fired because you showed insensitivity at a time of reverence. Not because you voiced a political view.
Despite any truthfulness of your poorly articulated opinion, you lacked the common decency to hold your tongue, til at least the week after.
Cest la vie.
User ID not verified.