He sued, and, so far, lost. The report doesn't say whether the judgment can be appealed or whether the pianist will do so. But in the course of the reporting we get hypocrisy.
The pianist, Jayson Gillham, claimed in a lawsuit that the orchestra had violated the country's Fair Work Act and his right not to be treated unfavorably in the workplace because of his political beliefs.That's, sorta kinda, a Fifth Amendment argument. OK.
But the judge, Graeme Hill of the Federal Court of Australia, ruled on Friday that because Mr. Gillham was an independent contractor he was not protected under the workplace rights law. The orchestra, Justice Hill determined, had acted to protect its business and reputation when it canceled the performance by Mr. Gillham and issued statements to its patrons about the matter.OK. An independent contractor isn't an employee, right?
A spokeswoman for the orchestra said in a statement that it welcomed the judgment and that Mr. Gillham "should have sought the authorization of the M.S.O. before making the statements he made" from the stage.So, why would a contractor be required to get authorization to make independent statements? He's not an employee of the M.S.O., right?
I guess being for killing journalists (anywhere, for the sake of argument) is in the M.S.O.'s best interest for its "business and reputation". At least, that's how I would parse the sentence. At least one head rolled
After the cancellation, the orchestra's musicians passed a vote of no confidence in the administration, and the organization announced that its managing director was departing.
