Andrew Thorburn, former chief executive officer of the Essendon Football Club, would appear to have been the subject of what I as an employment lawyer would call a “forced voluntary resignation”.
A hypothetical CEO in his position is usually given some options, all of them unfavourable and leading to the employment ending, but being able to retain a modicum of dignity by exercising some limited personal control by resigning. Usually the resignation spares the person from some fate much worse, such as summary dismissal or an internal investigation into alleged wrongdoing.
Andrew Thorburn resigned after one day as Essendon chief executive.Credit:Eddie Jim
I do not know how Mr Thorburn came to resign 24 hours after his appointment as CEO of Essendon Football Club. Reports assert it was due to his involvement with a church organisation that allegedly in a sermon in 2013 denounced homosexuality and abortion. Mr Thorburn apparently may not even hold these views personally. What I do know is that the law in Victoria (and other states in this country) protects freedom of religion and other fundamental human rights.
Mr Thorburn has the right, protected by the laws enacted by the parliaments of Victoria and the Commonwealth, to be a member of whatever lawful religion he chooses. He has a right to hold the views of that religion. He has this right just as much as men and women have a right not to be sexually harassed at work, or women have a right to be pregnant and keep their job, or LGBTI people have a right not to be treated unfavourably at work due to their sexual preference, or someone with depression has a right not to be dismissed because of their disability.
People hold different views about different topics in the workplace. Acceptance of those views, provided that they are not unlawful or injurious to others, is what genuine inclusion and diversity means. Freedom of religion is protected by Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010. The legal protection means that a person cannot be treated unfavourably because they hold, or do not hold, a lawful religious belief or view.
There are similar protections in the Fair Work Act, which covers most employees in Australia, preventing employers from taking “adverse action” against an employee, including because of their religion or political opinions.
While many people in Australia today may not consider themselves to be particularly religious, anti-discrimination laws do not prioritise one protected attribute over another. Freedom of religion is afforded the same protection alongside gender identity, disability, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental or carer status, pregnancy, race, sex, and other accepted attributes.
Pressuring an employee to resign due to their pregnancy or sexual preference, if proven, would be just as unlawful as pressuring an employee to resign due to their religious belief.
It seems that Andrew Thorburn’s appointment was not consistent with Essendon Football Club’s ultimate aspirations for its ideal CEO, although that is not what the club said when his appointment was announced. Putting aside whether adequate pre-employment due diligence was conducted, and assuming Mr Thorburn felt he had no choice but to resign due to the predicament he found himself in, employers tread a slippery slope when they cherry-pick the human rights they are willing to respect and those they are not. When this occurs, the totality of our human rights protections at work become vulnerable to cancel culture.
In a different age, it might have been unthinkable for a woman to become the president of a football club. If members of a club demanded that a man be installed instead this would rightfully be considered discrimination on the basis of gender.
Likewise, I think most of us would be appalled if a gay AFL player were pressured to resign from a club due to his sexuality. Religious belief is no different. It is a protected attribute at law and deserves the same recognition until such time as it is no longer a protected attributed and is removed by parliament, should that ever occur.
You may not like Thorburn’s views, but his right to continue in employment isn’t dependent on whether you like what he or his church thinks. Cancelling him for the views some members of his religion might hold in defiance of legal protections the state offers him endangers the protections we all enjoy under that same law.
