A prospective CSIRO executive has filed an employment suit against the government agency, alleging it breached her contract by firing her before she started, citing “stakeholder feedback”.
In the suit, filed December 20, Michelle Edge accuses CSIRO of breaching the relevant enterprise agreement with the termination, which she says did not give her sufficient information about the stakeholder feedback to enable her to understand and respond to the concerns raised.
Edge further alleges the CSIRO committed deceit “with high-handed disregard for Ms Edge’s rights under the contract of employment and enterprise agreement … and for her well-being” when a senior executive delayed her start date under false pretences.
In the suit, Edge says the CSIRO formally offered her a three-year, $381,432 per annum position as Director of its Health and Biosecurity department on May 20, 2022, which she accepted on June 2. On June 6, the CSIRO issued a widely reported announcement in which Executive Director of Future Industries Kirsten Rose said she was thrilled with Edge’s appointment.
But an about-face came the next month, when Rose told Edge that the CSIRO was “not ready” for her to start work as planned on July 5 and suggested she start the following week instead, citing the fact that Rose was currently acting CEO and that only few of the agency’s executives were present.
The following week, Edge was told by HR executives that the CSIRO was terminating her employment because of “stakeholder feedback” it had received, with no further details provided. A further letter stated only that the agency had “received feedback from a number of important stakeholders” on Edge’s appointment.
In the suit, Edge alleges that the CSIRO fired her without power, as her termination did not come under any of the circumstances set out in the contract of employment.
The contract provided for a three-month notice period for dismissal, which could only be effected for certain reasons listed in the contract, including incompetence and misconduct.
Edge further argues that through Rose’s communications prior to her scheduled commencement, the CSIRO falsely represented the reasons why it postponed her start date, and that she would be able to start on July 18.
Edge says that between July 5 and 14, she made a number of appointments with CSIRO staff and sent LinkedIn messages related to her position, and that the CSIRO’s deceit caused her reputation damage, hurt, humiliation and mental distress.
If not for her illegitimate firing, she would have performed the three-year contract, with “a strong chance” for a second three-year term, the suit alleges.
Edge says she has suffered loss and damage including the loss of the $381,432 per annum remuneration package, inconvenience and mental distress caused by moving her family from Adelaide to Canberra to take the position, and future economic loss arising from the diminished employment prospects and reputational damage suffered as a result of the CSIRO’s breach.
Edge is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, damages for breach of contract as well as aggravated and exemplary damages for deceit.
Edge claims aggravated damages over the CSIRO’s alleged “failure to respond substantively after many months” to a letter from her solicitors sent in August 2022, and exemplary damages because its deceit “was committed with high-handed disregard for Ms Edge’s rights under the Contract of Employment and Enterprise Agreement … and for her well-being.”
The suit also alleges that the CSIRO failed to give her three months notice of termination as required by the contract, and breached the implied duties of good faith, to maintain the employment relationship, and “cooperate to facilitate the performance of the contract.”
It is further argued that the CSIRO breached its obligation under the ‘Workplace Issues Resolution Procedure’ in the relevant enterprise agreement by failing to allow her to commence the position and respond to feedback, and provide her with sufficient information about the stakeholder feedback in order for her to understand and respond to the concerns raised.
Edge says that following her termination, she requested all documents referring to or recording stakeholder feedback following the announcement, as well as documents relating to any consideration given to her termination with the CSIRO’s response disclosing documents between the public announcement of June 6 and her dismissal on July 14.
The suit alleges that between those dates, the CSIRO was considering terminating Edge’s appointment according to communications received from certain persons, and did not inform her.
Edge previously served as chief executive of South Australia’s Department of Primary Industries and Regions from April 2020 to December 2021.
At the time, SA Premier Steven Marshall thanked Edge for having “led the department through unprecedented times during the COVID-19 pandemic,” but did not explain her departure, according to a report by InDaily.
She came to PIRSA from the government-partnered Operational Solutions for Primary Industries (OSPRI) in New Zealand, a body which manages animal diseases. Before that, Edge previously served as CEO of the Australian Meat Processor Corporation, and in the Victorian public sector.
Lawyerly has contacted the CSIRO for comment.
Edge is represented by Maurice Blackburn. CSIRO is represented by Norton Rose Fulbright.
The case is Michelle Edge v Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
Copyright Lawyerly Media. Unauthorised reproduction or distribution of this article is prohibited.
A reprint licence is required to reproduce or distribute this article. Contact Us for a reprint licence.