Sally Rugg has failed in her bid to return to work as the chief of staff for Kooyong MP Monique Ryan.
Federal Court judge Debbie Mortimer on Tuesday dismissed Ms Rugg’s application to return to work while she awaited trial.
The activist claims she was sacked by Dr Ryan for raising concerns about unreasonable work.
Sally Rugg had the opportunity to turn down an additional $30,205 in her position as the chief of staff for Kooyong MP Monique Ryan if she could not commit to the overtime requirement
Dr Ryan said: ‘Ms Rugg never said to me that would like to choose not to receive the Parliamentary Staff Allowance, and to the best of my knowledge she did in fact receive it’
She had sought an interim injunction to stop the Commonwealth from terminating her employment until a trial.
In handing down her ruling, Justice Mortimer told the parties to continue to work together to resolve the matter in the hope of avoiding a costly trial.
Dr Ryan tuned into the brief hearing via videolink where she was seen to annoyingly fidget about before turning off her camera.
I am far from persuaded Ms Rugg really wants to go back to work supporting and assisting Dr Ryan
In a 30-page document outlining the reasons for her decision, Justice Mortimer said Ms Rugg’s arguments at trial about contraventions of the Fair Work Act may well succeed.
‘If that is the case, then on the evidence as it will be at trial, she will be able to apply for an order for reinstatement,’ she stated.
‘The circumstances may well be quite different then, and the court would be proceeding on the basis that she has been wholly or largely successful in her allegations.’
‘I do not consider the refusal of interlocutory relief occasions any prejudice to Ms Rugg in the final relief she seeks.’
Ms Rugg has foreshadowed an intention to add penalty claims against the Commonwealth, which are wider in scope and relate to allegations of a systematic tolerance for unreasonable working hours by all parliamentary staff.
The salary Ms Rugg accepted was $136,607. There was an additional Parliamentary Staff Allowance of $30,205 to account for the reasonable expectation of overtime, particularly during sitting weeks
In her decision, Justice Mortimer suggested the foreshadowed trial could revolutionise the way companies deal with overtime.
‘Ms Rugg has foreshadowed an intention to add penalty claims against the Commonwealth, which are wider in scope and relate to allegations of a systematic tolerance (I infer, by the Commonwealth and those acting on its behalf) for unreasonable working hours by all parliamentary staff,’ she stated.
‘That claim may add another five to 10 days, as counsel for Ms Rugg accepted this was a much broader claim, involving more witnesses.’
Ms Rugg had accepted $136,607 to perform the role of Dr Ryan’s chief of staff, with an additional Parliamentary Staff Allowance of $30,205 to account for the reasonable expectation of overtime, particularly during sitting weeks.
She’ is suing her employer in the Federal Court over what she claims to be unreasonable work expectations and a ‘hostile’ workplace.
According to the job description Dr Ryan advertised, the role would require 12-hour days during parliamentary sitting weeks and a level of flexibility and versatility.
But in an affidavit filed to the court, Dr Ryan revealed there was a clause of the agreement which stated ‘a personal employee may choose not to receive a Parliamentary Staff Allowance where the employee is unable to, or does not expect to work significant additional hours of work’.
The clause clarifies employees that often opt out of additional hours of work due to personal or family commitments have the option to reject the sum.
Dr Ryan said: ‘Ms Rugg never said to me that would like to choose not to receive the Parliamentary Staff Allowance, and to the best of my knowledge she did in fact receive it.’
The job description Dr Ryan advertised after her monumental win as part of the ‘teal landslide’ during the federal election said applicants would be responsible for the planning and execution of an annual budget, implementing a media strategy, running various social media channels and drafting speeches.
Ms Rugg (pictured) was offered the role on the back of her inspiring cover letter, in which she guaranteed she could deliver all that Dr Ryan expected and more
Teal MP Monique Ryan (pictured last month) acknowledged it was a significant workload but does not agree Ms Rugg was expected to do the work of four people
Sally Rugg (pictured with her lawyers) launched an unfair dismissal claim against Dr Monique Ryan and the Commonwealth in January
Justice Mortimer had previously expressed her frustration over Ms Rugg’s application to return to work.
She said she had struggled to grapple with the idea of Ms Rugg and Dr Ryan returning to work in close proximity with each other, pending any trial, after hearing evidence of their volatile relationship in a full-day hearing last week.
‘I don’t think I have seen a case like this,’ she said.
‘The material is pretty stark about a breakdown in the work relationship. How are they to be compelled to continue to work together?’
Dr Ryan maintained it would be ‘impractical, if not impossible’ to have Ms Rugg return to work in her office.
On Tuesday, Justice Mortimer questioned Ms Rugg’s actual dedication to the ‘teal movement’.
‘She has given a lot of evidence about her own ambitions, her own desires to be in Canberra.
‘On this interlocutory application, the evidence about her personal objectives is relevant because it persuades me there is no prospect whatsoever of a cooperative working relationship being restored because – even for the purposes of her own application – Ms Rugg cannot bring herself to express her dedication to assisting Dr Ryan,’ Justice Mortimer stated.
‘She instead focuses on her own career objectives. Which, as I say, are perfectly understandable and not to be criticised in themselves. On this application, they weigh against the grant of the relief Ms Rugg seeks. I am far from persuaded Ms Rugg really wants to go back to work supporting and assisting Dr Ryan.’
Earlier, the hearing was told how Ms Rugg was issued a formal warning after she flew home from Canberra while knowingly infected with Covid.
Dr Ryan claimed she offered Ms Rugg a six-week severance pay should she choose to resign, adding she could ‘spin it’ and ‘say that her employment ”just wasn’t a good fit”.’
But Ms Rugg recalls the conversation differently. She told the hearing Dr Ryan approached her while no other staff were present and said: ‘I’m going to terminate your employment. I have made up my mind to terminate you in January’.
Ms Rugg claimed in her affidavit that Dr Ryan said this was an ‘off book’ option which would be ‘mutually beneficial, but it has to be done off the record’.
She said the alleged altercation left her ‘distraught’.