Antoinette Lattouf has been accused of being “prone to exaggeration” and someone who “has not shown herself to be a reliable historian”, according to the lawyer representing the ABC in the journalist’s unfair dismissal claim, as the case comes to a close.
Ian Neil made the comments about Lattouf during his closing submissions on the final day of a hearing at the Fair Work Commission, where Lattouf has lodged an unlawful termination application.
Lattouf claims she was sacked from a casual presenting role on Sydney’s Mornings radio program over her political views and her race.
Lattouf was contracted as a casual presenter for five shifts in December. She maintains she was terminated after three shifts, after she reposted a video from Human Rights Watch on her personal Instagram page that said: “The Israeli government is using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza.”
The ABC’s case is that Lattouf was not dismissed, but rather was told she would not be required to present the final two shifts of the Mornings program, which she was paid for.
Giving evidence for the first time on Monday, Lattouf disputed this, saying she had been told in a meeting in December with ABC management “words to the effect of ‘we’re taking you off air’.”
Lattouf also told the commission that an inability to work for the ABC would have a “significant effect” on her ability to get other work as a journalist.
Lattouf was asked about a conversation she claims she had with ABC content director Elizabeth Green on her way out of the ABC building after being told she was not required to come back for the final shifts of her December contract. Lattouf said she told Green that she was worried “I’ll never work for the ABC again”.
Neil grilled Lattouf for more than an hour in a tense cross-examination that saw frequent objections from Lattouf’s lawyer Mark Gibian.
Neil particularly focused on Lattouf’s recollection of the words used by ABC staff during a meeting in December that resulted in the end of her time presenting the radio show, pushing her as to whether she was told she had been dismissed or told that she was “not required” to present the final days of the show.
During closing submissions, Neil questioned Lattouf’s honesty in her account of that meeting.
“The applicant has not shown herself to be a reliable historian of what was said in that meeting or in the subsequent conversation with Ms Green,” he said.
“She has shown herself … to be prone to exaggeration, and by exaggerating to seek to advance a form of words consistent with her thesis that she was dismissed. The notion that she was told that she would be ‘let go’ appears as early as the email shortly after the meeting, and yet she agreed today that words to that effect were never said.”
Gibian disputed this, saying that Lattouf’s evidence about the meeting was backed up in many instances by the testimony of the ABC staff who gave evidence to the commission on Friday and that there had been a “misunderstanding, perhaps a mishearing” by Neil – who appeared via videolink – of Lattouf’s evidence about the meeting.
“Our contention is that the ABC expressly terminated her employment,” Gibian said.
He said Lattouf had been called into a meeting with senior staff, told she had breached ABC policy, was no longer required to do the last two days of work she had been contracted for, and directed to leave the building.
“This would be interpreted by any reasonable person as bringing employment to an end … prompted by a desire by the ABC not to be associated with Ms Lattouf any longer,” Gibian said.
He also argued that the fact that Lattouf had been paid for the final two days of the contract was not relevant.
“First, Ms Lattouf was not told – on anyone’s account of that meeting – that she was going to be paid for those two shifts … Some after the event payment, in the absence of any communication, would not affect anyone’s reasonable interpretation of whether she had been terminated.”
He also argued that the short nature of the contract was irrelevant.
“It doesn’t matter if there was six months to go or two days to go, that was a decision that brought the employment to an end.”
The matter relating to whether Lattouf was dismissed has now concluded and the commission’s deputy president, Gerard Boyce, will rule on whether it can proceed to a further hearing.
Lattouf has separately sued the ABC in the federal court for allegedly breaching its enterprise agreement.
• This article was amended on 11 March 2024 to make clear that the federal court case relates to the ABC’s enterprise agreement rather than unlawful termination, as a previous version said.
