Foxy,

Thorburn was told he could either resign or be dismissed if he didn't give up his position in the church. That is constructive dismissal and in the courts would be considered exactly the same as him being dismissed.

While not an IR lawyer I have worked in business to know that the footy club has wandered into a legal minefield.

shadowminister,

I've just come across the following link.
I'd like your opinion of it:

http://news.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-ceo-andrew-thorburn-isnt-a-victim-he-made-a-choice/news-story/176f9668bb88cf9c161add85a673e5f2

Dear Foxy,

Regarding your link:

I wouldn't like to work for an employer who meddles with what I do outside working hours, in other words, who tries to "own" me outright - would you?

It is strange how Thorburn can have time for both jobs simultaneously, but other than the time problem, there should be no conflict if he worked in both, wearing a different hat when he does each.

While his new employer seems to be foolish in losing both Thorburn and their reputation, ultimately, metaphysically, there are no victims and all we encounter in life is always a result of our previous choices!

Foxy,

Regarding your link to the opinion piece, Thorburn chose to resign. What the article omits is that:

1 - There is no statement, post or article from Thorburn that is even vaguely homophobic, transphobic etc.

2 - Thorburn never hid his connection to the church from the Essendon board.

3 - His "choice" was to resign from the Church or from Essendon based on statements made by someone else in the church long before Thorburn had anything to do with the church.

Effectively Thorburn's association with the church was a dismissable offence.

This was effectively a constructive dismissal. Considering that Essendon knew of his connections prior to hiring him if Thorburn took this to court Essendon would be on very shaky legal ground.

Hi Yuyutsu and shadowminister,

It would be interesting to see how this case would play out
in a court of law. If the shoe was on the other foot.
If Thorburn's views were different from that of the Church,
would the Church still retain him as their Chair - and
what would Thorburn's legal standing be in that case?

Dear Foxy,

«It would be interesting to see how this case would play out in a court of law.»

It should never get there - the bottom line is that X did not want to employ Y, then why should X have to employ Y and why would Y want to work for someone who does not want them, whatever be their reasons (if any)?