Garriock v Football Federation Case-Study-Free-Samples for Students

Questions: 1.What were the material facts of the case? 2.What was argued on behalf of Heather Garriock? And why? 3.What was argued on behalf of the Football Federation of Australia? And why? 4.What did the Tribunal decide? And why? Answers: 1.In the case of Garriock v Football Federation Australia[1] Heather Garriock, who was a football player and a former Matilda, and Olympian, in addition to being the mother of a 3 year old daughter initiated a complaint of discrimination against the FFA, i.e., the Football Federation Australia before the Anti-Discrimination Board of the New South Wales. The complaint was based on the rejection of the assistance request by Garriock when she was offered a place on the three week football tour which was to take place in USA by the FFA. The assistance request was related to the costs of child care for the period of this tour. The standard pay for FFA for an earlier tour was nearly one half of the costs of the child care for the daughter of Garriock[2]. Garriock had represented Australia as a nation in two Olympics and three World Cups[3]. The selection for USA included a paid allowance of $150 each day and $ 500 for each game, where for the two week tour, she earned $2,440 overall[4]. It was contended by Garriock that the conduct of the FFA had been an indirect discrimination towards her and as a result of this, there had been a contravention of provisions covered under the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act, 1977[5]. This claim was based on the illegality in discriminating against an employee owing to the responsibilities of the carer. The section claimed here was section 49V of this act on the basis of the responsibilities as a carer in employment area. The main issue in this case was related to the identification of the condition or requirement regarding the need of Garriock which had to be met by the FFA. This is because in a claim of indirect discrimination, identification or a condition or a requirement is an important element. The FFAs unlawful conduct covered the imposition of a condition and requirement which was garnered for the person with regards to its fulfilment in comparison to others and the same was not reasonable. The requirement here was for the players to take the entire responsibility of the substitute carer arrangements for the tour and its costs. And the alternative requirement was for players to take the tour where the entire responsibility of alternative maternal care arrangements for the infant was the responsibility of the player along with its costs[6]. 2.On behalf of Garriock, it was argued that the section 49V(1)(c), 49V(2)(a) and 49V(2)(d) had been contravened as the FFA had discriminated against her based on her responsibilities as a carer in the matter of terms offered, for discriminating with regards to condition of employer that the employer affords the employee, or for the detriment of the employee. She also stated that during the tour period, she was an employee of the FFA. However, the same was denied by FFA. The issue was not contested as section 49V of this act did include the work under the contract, which Garriock was under for the tour[7]. A claim of indirect discrimination was also stated on the basis of section 49T(1)(b) of this act. She stated that the indirect discrimination was based on the responsibilities which she had as a carer as she was required to fulfil the requirements of the FFA, which were not reasonable. This requirement was related to her bearing the responsibility of the costs of care of her daughter during the US tour. She rejected the claim of the FFA that the impugned requirements were only applicable on her[8]. This was due to the testimony of Freeme regarding the imposition of these requirements as a general rule which was equally applicable on each and every player taking part in the tour[9]. With regards to the claims made by the FFA, she also contended that she had to bear adverse effects owing to the requirements which became applicable only on her on the basis of Hurst v State of Queensland[10]. The FFA stated that the conduct which had been claimed upon by Garriock did not fall under the sections quoted by her. They further stated that the impugned requirement had not been imposed at any stage, which included the time when Garriock was hired and the time when she was engaged on the tour. They also pointed that the impugned requirements were not the precondition for selection as Matildas member. FFA also stated that the entire complaint was misconceived as the same did not require the plaintiff or any other player on the US tour to follow the requirement or the alternative requirement, i.e., the impugned requirement. The FFA did not have the need of bringing Kaizen, i.e., the infant, on the tour or for incurring the costs of bringing her on the tour. The decision had to be followed on tour by dependent child and the relatives as the same was a private matter and this was not related to the terms based on which the players were brought on roll. It was also argued by the FFA t hat it was unfair to characterise the refusal to accommodate the demands of Garriock regarding bearing of costs related to bringing Kaizen on tour, for the purpose of requirement provisions covered under section 49T(1)(b) of the quoted act[11]. 3.Another major argument put forward by the Federation was that contrary to the beliefs of the plaintiff regarding the pay for the child care costs to be the responsibility of the employer, she failed in pointing out any of the industrial agreements or laws as per which the GFA had to contribute towards the additional cost of child care which she would otherwise have to incur due to her participation in the tour. The FFA went on to submit that there was an absolute lack of evidence which could put the requirement that the other players had to comply with either of the impugned requirements. This was because Garriock was the sole player on the US Tour who had not been engaged under the playing contract of Matildas and was also the sole player who had carer responsibilities with regards to an infant child. Also, the impugned requirements had been elucidated in such terms which could only become applicable over Garriock[12]. This was a major problem for the claims of Garriock as the req uirement had to be one which had to be complied by the whole group as was held in the case of Australian Iron and Steel Pty Limited v Banovic[13]. 4.The Tribunal rejected the application of Garriock based on the requirement and alternative requirement failing to be constituted as a condition or requirement based on the quoted act. It was indicated by the Tribunal that for constituting the same as a condition or a requirement under the quoted act, there was a obligation on part of the employer that the requirement was not only applicable on the aggrieved party but on every other employee. The reason for this was given as the provisions covered under the act regarding indirect discrimination where the decision maker is required to decide upon whether the substantially high proportion of an individual without the related feature for complying or being able to comply with the requirements, in comparison to the individual with the relevant feature[14]. In the given case, the Tribunal held that the plaintiff had been the sole individual who had to follow the alternative requirement or requirement. The other players on the tour did not have the responsibility as a carer for the infant child and there was no other player who was accompanied by the child. On the basis of this, it could not be stated that the players who were without carer responsibilities were under the obligation for the alternative carer arrangements which was occasioned by the tour and the costs associated with it. It was expressed by the Tribunal that the FFA was likely to be subjected to criticism regarding the same to be perceived to be mean spirited and also inflexible attitude towards the player, to the likes of the plaintiff. Though, the anti-discrimination act did not provide the remedy for any and all forms of discrimination[15]. The Tribunal compared the present case to the situations with the young student having hearing impairment, in the case of Hurst and Devlin v Education Queensland[16]. In the quoted case, there had been an obligation on the students in classroom to accept the education and also get the instructions in English, without getting any help of the interpreter or the Auslan teacher. Hurst in this case had been the sole individual in the class who had the relevant features based on which the discrimination had been claimed as a result of her hearing impairment. Even though the adverse effect of this obligation was focused on the impact of Hurst and the rest of the students in the class did not face any difficulty in fulfilling the conditions. Unlike the present case, the difference with the quoted case was the requirements had to be complied with all the students in the classroom[17]. The emails which had been exchanged in between Garriock and Freeme particularly with regards to the statement of Freeme regarding it not being the responsibility of the employer to pay for such costs in addition to the admission which was made under the oral evidence was a simple reliance over the position of FFA regarding any person who wanted to bring their child on the tour, bearing the costs associated with the child. This was a proof enough that Garriock had not been singled out by the FFA and instead that she was subjected to the general rule which applied on everyone. In order to comparison regarding Garriock being not engaged on Matildas Playing Contract, there was a need to identify the relevant base group as per Bonella Ors v Wollongong City Council[18]. The act did not set down the composition of this group, which had to be varied based on the situation of the pertinent case. Though, as per Commonwealth Bank v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission[19], there was a need to show the importance of the applicable features for complying with the impugned requirements. Being engaged on differentiated terms in comparison to other players did not how that the touring team represented an improper base group where the requirements were applicable equally on all the players. The claim of Garrriock based on Hurst v State of Queensland was not related to the problems identified in this case[20]. The Tribunal came to conclude that if an unlawful discrimination is upheld in this case, it would strain FFA in an impermissible manner, even when the most liberal interpretation was adopted with regards to the pertinent provisions of the anti-discrimination act. And as a result of this, the complaint of Garriock had been rejected by the court[21]. Bibliography Cases Australian Iron and Steel Pty Limited v Banovic [1989] HCA 56 Bonella Ors v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWADT 194 Commonwealth Bank v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) 150 ALR 1 Garriock v Football Federation Australia [2016] NSWCATAD 63 Hurst and Devlin v Education Queensland [2005] FCA 405 Hurst v State of Queensland [2006] FCAFC 100 Legislation Anti-Discrimination Act, 1977 (NSW)Other Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, Matildas childcare case fails (May 2016) https://www.antidiscrimination.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/legal-cases/matildas-childcare-case-fails.aspx Austlii, Garriock v Football Federation Australia [2016] NSWCATAD 63 (8 April 2016) (20 April 2016) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCATAD/2016/63.html?context=1;query=Garriock%20v%20Football%20Federation%20Australia%20;mask_path=au/cases Legal Vision, Flexible Working Arrangements: On and Off the Field (27 April, 2016) https://legalvision.com.au/flexibility-and-support-both-on-and-off-the-field/ New South Wales Case Law, Garriock v Football Federation Australia [2016] NSWCATAD 63 (2016) https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5705a150e4b05f2c4f04c9c6 PCC Lawyers, Unlawful discrimination: Garriock v Football Federation Australia [2016] NSWCATAD 63 (2016) https://www.pcclawyers.com.au/news-centre/recent-law-cases/277-garriock-v-football-federation-australia-2016-nswcatad-63 Young J, Even Matildas Need Childcare: An Analysis Of Garriock V Football Federation Australia (8 August 2016) https://www.corrs.com.au/publications/corrs-in-brief/even-matildas-need-childcare-an-analysis-of-garriock-v-football-federation-australia/ Garriock v Football Federation Australia [2016] NSWCATAD 63 PCC Lawyers, Unlawful discrimination: Garriock v Football Federation Australia [2016] NSWCATAD 63 (2016) https://www.pcclawyers.com.au/news-centre/recent-law-cases/277-garriock-v-football-federation-australia-2016-nswcatad-63 Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, ?Matildas childcare case fails (May 2016) https://www.antidiscrimination.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/legal-cases/matildas-childcare-case-fails.aspx Janine Young, Even Matildas Need Childcare: An Analysis Of Garriock V Football Federation Australia (8 August 2016) https://www.corrs.com.au/publications/corrs-in-brief/even-matildas-need-childcare-an-analysis-of-garriock-v-football-federation-australia/ Anti-Discrimination Act, 1977 (NSW)At 4Ibid Legal Vision, Flexible Working Arrangements: On and Off the Field (27 April, 2016) https://legalvision.com.au/flexibility-and-support-both-on-and-off-the-field/ New South Wales Case Law, Garriock v Football Federation Australia [2016] NSWCATAD 63 (2016) https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5705a150e4b05f2c4f04c9c6 Hurst v State of Queensland [2006] FCAFC 100 At 9 Austlii, Garriock v Football Federation Australia [2016] NSWCATAD 63 (8 April 2016) (20 April 2016) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCATAD/2016/63.html?context=1;query=Garriock%20v%20Football%20Federation%20Australia%20;mask_path=au/cases Australian Iron and Steel Pty Limited v Banovic [1989] HCA 56At 12 At 9 Hurst and Devlin v Education Queensland [2005] FCA 405At 12 Bonella Ors v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWADT 194 at [77] Commonwealth Bank v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) 150 ALR 1 at 42At 12 At 9 the requirements had to be complied with all the students in the classroom