I’m more intrigued about Jackie’s legal action if she’s alleging ARN terminated her contract because she complained about unsafe working conditions, that seems like a case ARN can’t win.
I’m not so sure. If they offered her the possibility of another role and she turned that down then I think they might have a fairly defensible position on terminating the original contract. We’ll have to see what happens but I think it’ll come down to exactly what was said by both parties.
Yes but how many times can you get bopped on the head before you say enough. Difference between poison and medicine can be dosage.
2 Likes
If ARN have a long list of examples where Kyle was warned about his behaviour, that would also help their case. When Jackie said she felt bullied and unsafe that could have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
4 Likes
Or they haven’t.
there is no evidence right now either way - other than Kyle’s statement. Any documented evidence will also have to show that Kyle was effectively out of strikes and next strike would be taken as gross misconduct
“At its core, the case turns on whether a contract built around a controversial, high-impact broadcaster, and supported by systems to manage that risk, can be unwound on the basis of the very behaviour it anticipated”
Kyle also argues that ARN made it impossible for him to remedy the work relationship with Jackie as they terminated her. If her contract is no longer in effect it’s impossible for him to fix the situation
1 Like
It’s even worse than that - they have to justify the entire thing based on the single astrology incident. Because of the way they worded the ASX statement, they CANT use past behaviour. But Kyle CAN, to make the opposite point. That’s what GCR’s legal expert claimed anyway. ARN are screwed
1 Like
This is the only outcome. Kyle isnt getting his job back. The only question is how much is he going to get in the settlement
>So Jackie has gone to management before to say she feels bullied and can’t work with him?
Its something that the lawyer on GCR podcast brought up and what I’ve been saying since this first started. Which is, if this argument was nearly identical to others on the show with resulted in no further action from ARN or Jackie herself. The fact that she reacted this way, this time, should hold little to no weight in Kyle’s case
And they fired her for complaining!
Strictly speaking “Her contract (she is not an employee) was terminated because she was unwilling to complete the work (working with Kyle)” but that’s barely different in reality
They have to argue that that morning’s argument was just such bad behaviour towards Jackie on Kyle’s part that it justified getting rid of him and her. It’s a joke.
No that’s absolutely not true. Gross misconduct can happen without any prior similar behaviour or warnings. Gross misconduct is based on the severity of the incident, not cumulative incidents.
1 Like
But it has to be severe enough to warrant dismissal which I do not think ARN can prove that. And if it was why wasn’t he taken off air immediately?
Time will tell… Or more likely they’ll reach a settlement. And again we keep mixing employment terms. It wasn’t “dismissal”, it was terminating a contract for supply of services.
Speaking to someone like that in the corporate world would definitely be grounds for dismissal or terminating a contract.
1 Like
Again, she was allegedly offered the possibility of a different role and allegedly refused that. They will argue that was a factor in termination of the contract for services. They could say she was unable to fulfill the terms of the contract AND unwilling to consider alternative roles. Anyway, none of this is getting as far as court.
An article I read the other day, suggested ARN is still keen to work with Jackie on a new show.
That’s absurd though. That barely changes the situation. “I don’t want to work with him AND i don’t want a solo show” “you’re fired” what’s the bet there’s some context we’re missing for one thing, also even if it is true, that’s no way to handle the situation
Found the article.
It was commentary on rumours. Other interesting piece though
Meanwhile, the centrepiece of ARN’s defence for terminating Sandilands’ contract is said to be the letter from Henderson’s lawyers that contains her more extensive reasons for being unable to work with her former radio co-star.
Sources unable to speak publicly say this letter goes well beyond the on-air spat during which Sandilands berated her and belittled her astrology mania, which in turn prompted Henderson to stop broadcasting last month. In a statement on Monday, ARN said it disputed Sandilands’ claims and would defend the proceedings.
That’s the only right response - what else are they gonna do, paying her when she has declared to not work at all?
Can’t have that.
1 Like
So what ARN will have to prove is why this was considered gross misconduct and other incidents were not, and why they let two live censors out the argument to air when their job was to censor anything inappropriate
Considering on paper it is a first offence, what you’d do is give it time to settle & try to remedy the situation when cooler heads prevail. And not blame the victim! Jackie can’t seriously have told them “i no longer wish to work at all, but want to keep being paid. I want millions of dollars for the next 8 years for zero work”
Mediation is generally the first step. These two have a 20 year friendship. ARN acted out of opportunity and unfairly.
3 Likes