Tampering with reputations
OPINION: The dark underbelly of Australian cricket has been exposed, again.
During a recent test match between Australia and South Africa in Cape Town, one of the Australian players, Cameron Bancroft, was picked up by television cameras attempting to scuff one side of the match ball. Soon after, he was spotted hiding a piece of what looked like sandpaper in his pants.
Ball-tampering is against the laws of cricket, so naturally this footage raised serious questions about what Bancroft was doing.
Following the close of play, Bancroft fronted the media alongside captain Steve Smith. During the press conference, Smith made the stunning admission that Bancroft had been using a piece of tape to rub dirt granules on the side of the ball, and that the plan had been hatched by the team’s leadership group over lunch.
It would be fair to say that the episode and Smith’s admission have sparked something of a national crisis within Australia. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described the saga as ‘‘a shocking disappointment’’. Some have even gone so far as to refer to the incident as the darkest day in Australian sport. Around the world, the reputation of the Australian cricket team is in tatters.
After an immediate investigation, Cricket Australia confirmed that the players had, in fact, conspired to use sandpaper to scuff the ball. It announced that Smith and David Warner would be banned from all international and domestic cricket for a year, with Bancroft banned from all domestic and international cricket for nine months. In addition, both Smith and Bancroft would not be considered for any leadership positions for 12 months after the conclusion of their ban, and Warner would not be considered for any leadership position in the future.
It has long been said in Australia that the position of captain of the test cricket team is the second most important role in the country behind the Prime Minister (although former primeminister and noted cricket-tragic John Howard once argued it was the other way around). The scandal will no doubt have farreaching consequences for Australian sporting pride, and it will take a long time for the damage to be repaired.
There have been other cases where international players have been fined or suspended for trying to alter the condition of the ball. For a number of reasons, including Smith’s admission that the tampering was premeditated and endorsed by the team’s leadership, as well as the way the Australian team has conducted itself on the field in recent times, the damage done by this incident goes well beyond anything that has come before.
In New Zealand, bringing an employer into disrepute can be a basis for termination of an employment relationship. However, the employer will usually need to be able to point to actual damage to reputation, or at least a high likelihood of damage being done.
There are also a range of circumstances that need to be taken into account when considering whether an employee should be dismissed for bringing their employer into disrepute. These include the nature of the business, its reputation and the response of the employer’s own customers. This means that what may cause disrepute to one employer may not cause disrepute to another.
A recent example involves a training cafe´ run by the Taumarunui Christian Education Trust and a junior supervisor, Frances Hall. Hall was disciplined after she served beer to a local man known as ‘‘Grunter’’ as well as giving trainees shots of vodka on her day off. The trust investigated the incidents and dismissed Hall on the basis that her actions brought the cafe´ into disrepute.
The authority found Hall’s dismissal was unjustified due to a number of issues with the disciplinary process followed by the trust. However, it concluded that there were grounds to dismiss, as Hall’s actions indicated she knew alcohol was not permitted at the cafe´ (she had served the beer in a coffee cup), and the actions took place in a public area involving cafe´ staff, which had the potential to cause reputational damage given the cafe´ ’s Christian values.
It is important to remember that conduct that brings an employer into disrepute does not necessarily have to occur at work or in work time. Where an employee behaves in a way outside of work that can be linked back to the employer, disciplinary action may also be justified.
Going back to the cricket, while many commentators have come out in defence of the players, stating that the sanctions imposed were too harsh, Cricket Australia’s chief executive had earlier said they would reflect the gravity of what occurred and the damage to Australian cricket. Given that damage, it seems in this case that the sanctions are justified.
❚ Susan Hornsby-geluk is partner at Dundaststreet Employment Lawyers. http://dundasstreet.co.nz/