The Court noted that freedom of thought under Article 14 does not offer protection to employees who violate the Code of Conduct by disagreeing with JCU decisions or processes if the expression of disagreement implies a breach of confidentiality of the parties concerned or confidential information collected, which violates the obligation under Article 54.1.5 and the Code of Conduct. Nevertheless, this decision highlights the complex interrelationship between the exercise of intellectual freedom, particularly in the academic field, and workplace codes of conduct and company agreements. Academics, it seems, cannot justify their comments or behaviors, however controversial they may be, by simply claiming that the exercise of their intellectual freedom is protected. Instead, this behavior remains subject to the terms of their codes of conduct and company agreements in the workplace, and they can be punished accordingly for violations of these instruments. This is not a far-reaching case as to whether academics have autonomous and unfettered intellectual freedom (or workers, freedom of expression). Rather, the focus is on whether the university can invoke the Code of Conduct as part of a company agreement to discipline an employee whose conduct violates the Code. Although the Court ruled that the freedom of thought protected by Article 14 of the JCU Company Agreement was “not a general freedom of expression”, it held that the objective of freedom of thought must allow for expression that deviates from civil standards of courtesy and respect, however desirable they may be. The High Court of Australia has unanimously dismissed an appeal by former James Cook University (JCU) professor Dr Peter Ridd, who had argued that JCU`s disciplinary action against him for breaching the Code of Conduct violated his right to freedom of thought granted by the company agreement. A recent decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia shows how complex the interaction between workplace agreements and codes of conduct can be in certain circumstances. The move meant ending Professor Peter Ridd`s employment at James Cook University (JCU) after he behaved for several years to criticize the publications of his colleagues and the JCU on climate science. Professor Ridd is a climate change denier and has claimed that his criticism is a protected exercise of his intellectual freedom. A 2-1 majority of the Court of Appeal (Griffiths and SC Derrington JJ, Rangiah J deviant) upheld an appeal from JCU, stating that the Chief Justice erred in finding that the termination of Professor Ridd`s employment did not violate the 2013-2016 JCU Company Agreement (the Company Agreement).

In considering Dr. Ridd`s confession with respect to his conduct, the issue before the High Court was relatively limited as to whether his misconduct constituted an exercise of intellectual liberty, in which case it would be permitted under the EA. If not, he would be subject to the disciplinary provisions of the Code of Conduct. The High Court was to resolve the conflict between the intellectual freedom of staff to debate, criticise and express controversial views, including disagreement with JCU`s decisions as enshrined in Article 14 of the EI, and one of the following: accordingly, and given that it did not challenge the issue at first instance or on appeal, Professor Ridd was found guilty of violating the Company Agreement. Violation of a company agreement violates section 50 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and results in a civil penalty. However, the court of appeal`s orders allowed Professor Ridd to file and serve another notice of appeal, so no civil penalty was imposed in the circumstances. The question for the High Court is narrow. This involves the correct interpretation of a company agreement to determine how a policy and the company agreement interact with each other.

Do they work together or does one prevail over the other? Given that Mr. Ridd had recognized breaches of confidentiality as serious misconduct under the Code of Conduct, the court concluded that it had no choice but to determine that JCU was entitled to apply the disciplinary sanctions set out in the Code of Conduct. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found that section 14 did not give Professor Ridd an unlimited right to express his opinion in the manner he chose and that he continued to be subject to the standards of conduct imposed by the Code of Conduct for expressing his opinions. In April 2016, the JCU imposed on Dr. Stripped of formal censorship after being convicted of violating the Code of Conduct for emailing a journalist saying “bad science” and misleading photos about the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef were circulating. Dr. Ridd further told the reporter that two JCU advocacy groups should “check their facts before telling their story.” 2Ridd vs James Cook University (#2) [2019] FCCA 2489. Please take a moment to update to the latest version.

It is important to note that Article 14 of the agreement provided for freedom of thought for all academic staff. However, freedom itself is limited: in conjunction with the agreement, the code requires all university employees to “treat colleagues, students, and members of the public with honesty, respect, and courtesy, and to consider the dignity and needs of others.” It is important to note that the Code is mentioned in the Agreement, the Agreement stipulating that: Copyright Nationwide News Pty Ltd. All AEST hours (GMT +10:00) The majority of the Court of Appeal also held that the standards of conduct prescribed in the Code of Conduct do not conflict with the protection of intellectual freedom under clause 14 of the Company Agreement. Therefore, the standards of conduct imposed by the Code of Conduct effectively restrict the exercise of freedom of thought. All information on this website is of a general nature only and is not intended to be considered a substitute or replacement for specific legal advice. No liability can be accepted for the loss inflicted on a person who acts on the basis of published documents or fails to take action. the code is not intended to “infringe” on freedom of thought. Professor Ridd was employed at JCU for 27 years until his employment ended on May 2, 2018 for serious misconduct. The termination followed 17 JCU findings that Professor Ridd had violated the JCU Code of Conduct (the Code of Conduct) and the issuance of two voice instructions, five confidentiality instructions, one “non-satire” instruction and two censorships.

At first instance and on appeal, Professor Ridd did not deny that he had participated in any of the conduct that had led to the various conclusions and instructions of the JCU. Nor did he challenge the characterization of this conduct as misconduct or gross misconduct, although the Court of Appeal found that some of the conduct was “undoubtedly insignificant.” Before the High Court hears the case on June 23, 2021, it is worth looking back at previous decisions to see where we are and how we got here. Griffiths and Derrington JJ. held that the Code, in conjunction with the agreement, “governs how freedom of thought is applied.” In particular, they took into account the fact that: At first instance, Justice Vasta of the Federal Circuit Court ruled in favor of Dr. Ridd. At the heart of his argument was his honor that the university assumed that the Code restricted the freedom provided for in the agreement. The hearing before the High Court is scheduled for 23 June 2021. While we don`t yet know how the Supreme Court will rule, we can say that this case will certainly attract more attention. .