‘She wasn’t sacked’ versus ‘She was sacked for nothing’: Lattouf in a nutshell
Antoinette Lattouf’s unlawful dismissal suit against the ABC came to a grinding close on Friday with the national broadcaster’s lawyer summing up a defence that rested on the assertion that, actually, she was never dismissed.
The case has attracted massive attention. Live streamed on Youtube, public interest peaked during the testimony of former ABC chair Ita Buttrose, with concurrent viewer counts in the 3000s. Thousands watched as the the ABC’s management choices were picked apart email by email. By summing up on a sultry Sydney Friday, the viewers had dwindled to the hundreds as the lawyers got into the weeds.
Arguments centred on what happened in late December 2023 when Antoinette Lattouf began but did not finish a five-day stint presenting mornings on ABC Sydney.
ABC lawyer Ian Neil followed the defence line that despite all the noise and fury, Lattouf had never actually been dismissed or punished, only paid to stay at home for two shifts.
“What is the punishment? We are going to pay you, but not require you to do any work?”
“He [ABC head of content Chris Oliver-Taylor] wanted to remove her from presenting a program,” Justice Darryl Rangiah said.
“Something he didn’t think was a punishment,” Neil said.
“What about Miss Lattouf?”
“She may well have thought it was. But regrettably, her thoughts were not relevant.”
Antoinette Lattouf
In reply, Lattouf’s lawyer Oshie Fagir said “there is an air of complete unreality to the [ABC’s] submission.”
He took aim at the evidence of ABC managers who claimed to be concerned about defending the reputation of the national broadcaster.
“The actors involved in this matter, persons who claim to have the utmost concern for the ABC’s reputation and its integrity … what could be more damaging to the ABC’s reputation and integrity than the overwhelming probability that one of its most senior managers was leaking information to The Australian newspaper?”
While the exact legal points are difficult to pick apart here – the ABC, for example, had a two-pronged defence – there is no doubt the ABC has come out of this tarnished. It just doesn’t look competent to employ a part-time presenter with widely known opinions on a five-day contract and then panic and tell her to stay home halfway through. This is basic stuff, and it’s all prefigured in one piece of evidence buried in the tomes.
The ABC’s acting editorial director Simon Melkman wrote this as the bureaucracy considered Lattouf’s fate:
“The other factor to consider is the risk of jumping the gun or overreacting to this. Given that Antoinette is quite outspoken (e.g. via her work with Media Diversity Australia), and clearly has strong views on the current conflict and the Australian media’s coverage of it (hence her decision to sign the open letter), I think there’s a high chance that if the ABC was to cut her presenting role short because of this Instagram post – a post which she would presumably argue was entirely defensible, and not reflective of offensive views etc. – she would make it a very big (and very public) issue.”
Very big and very public indeed. If the ABC had paid more attention to Melkman, several reputations would be in better shape today.
Justice Rangiah reserved his judgment.
ABC Australia is not a fair place anymore . it’s not right to see war crimes committed by Israel & Ukraine,& ABC try to hide the fact and avoid talking about it cheers
User ID not verified.
What a crazy world we live in, lots of people seem to be walking on egg shells, scared they may offend.
You have a 5 day contract, Woopie Doo, are found unsuitable after 3 days but are still paid for the 5.Tears are shed, feet are stamped and the old racial issue is wheeled out. Then over a million dollars in lawyers fees, get a life. If my feelings were hurt every time I was called a pommie bastard
I would have more money than Elon Musk.
User ID not verified.
In all of this entertaining hubbub it’s confusing that someone with as much publishing/business experience as Ita Buttrose seemingly failed to sense the anti-Lattouf emails she was receiving were part of a coordinated campaign. Feels like her key priority was badgering David Anderson and/or his reports to make them stop so she could enjoy a peaceful holiday break; in the process demonstrating an (at best) loose appreciation (or respect) for the accepted roles & responsibilities of a chairperson. Naive? Indifferent? Imperious? Maybe all three.
User ID not verified.
Would the ABC stop wasting tax payers money because if the gad have settled this BS many months ago it would have only cost us taxpayers less than 10% if what they have spent on lawyers etc
User ID not verified.
This woman really loves attention.
User ID not verified.
Do c was she successful in her lawsuit?
User ID not verified.
Have your say