In brief 3 min read
The High Court dismissed an appeal by Dr Peter Ridd, a former academic of James Cook University (the university), upholding his dismissal but recognising the protection of his intellectual freedom.
Key takeaways
- The interpretation of enterprise agreements, policies and other industrial instruments can be complex, and employers should be mindful of how those instruments interact.
- For an expression of opinion to attract the protection of intellectual freedom, it must relate to an area of academic competence.
Background
After 27 years with the university, Dr Ridd's employment started to unravel in 2015 after he sent an email to a journalist alleging that work by others about damage to the Great Barrier Reef was misleading. The university decided he had breached its Code of Conduct. It took further action after Dr Ridd made similar comments in a television interview, and engaged in other inappropriate behaviour, including trivialising, satirising and parodying the disciplinary action being taken against him, and breaching confidentiality. He was dismissed for serious misconduct in May 2018.
Dr Ridd claimed that he was exercising intellectual freedom, which was protected under the university's enterprise agreement. This meant it could not make a finding he had breached its Code of Conduct, that the directions and censures issued to him were invalid, and the termination was unlawful.
Initially, the Federal Circuit Court agreed with Mr Ridd and he was awarded $1,094,214.47 in compensation. On appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Court disagreed and upheld the university's appeal. He appealed to the High Court.
The decision
Dr Ridd lost his appeal. The High Court, in recognising the protection of intellectual freedom, nevertheless identified that the protection was subject to some limitations:
- the protection of intellectual freedom did not equate to a general freedom of speech. In particular, the protection required that expressions of opinion needed to relate to an area of academic competence;
- the protection of intellectual freedom was subject to some constraints in the Code of Conduct, but only those that were adopted in the relevant clause of the enterprise agreement; and
- while intellectual freedom is not constrained by requirements to respect and be courteous to others, it is constrained by requirements to follow the applicable processes of the university, including its requirements regarding confidentiality.
Dr Ridd should not have been censured for his comments relating to the expression of his honestly held views within his academic expertise. However, ultimately the termination was justified, given it was based on 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.