There’s been a lot of talk lately about how to build strong art boards, as well as some notable headlines about the high-profile Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO) governance review committee leader Peter Garrett stepping away from the Orchestra’s ongoing review process – due to its altered timeline arising from legal actions commenced against the company in recent months.
What is not getting talked about so much (at least not in the public domain) is the relationship between the actions that have led to the MSO’s review process, and the longer-term trajectory of this arts company thanks to the legal actions sparked by the controversial decisions of its management and Board.
Three months ago, former MSO CEO Sophie Galaise ‘left’ the company shortly after she and her management team chose to cancel a performance by pianist Jayson Gillham after he made what the company saw as inappropriate comments at an MSO recital last August. Now, the ABC reports that Galaise has reached a legal settlement with the MSO regarding a Fair Work complaint she lodged about her dismissal.
This reporting makes plain that Galaise’s departure from the MSO was because she was sacked, and sheds light on the path taken by the former CEO to seek redress for what she (and presumably her lawyer/s) saw as an unlawful dismissal.
The exact amount paid by the MSO to Galaise in their settlement deal is unknown, but it’s no secret that lawyers are expensive, and any form of legal action is guaranteed to cost both parties a considerable amount in financial terms.
Meanwhile pianist Jayson Gillham is pursuing legal action of his own against the MSO, drawing on the Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act and the federal Fair Work Act to make a case that the MSO violated his human and workplace rights by cancelling scheduled MSO performances in relation to comments he made during an MSO piano recital.
Read: NSW’s contemporary music strategy backs $250 minimum musician fees and calls for a new music school
Gillham is currently funding this legal action through an independent crowd funding campaign on chuffed.org where he has so far raised $23,330 of his $250,000 target amount.
Whether Gillham’s matter will also be settled out of court or before a judge is as yet unclear, but, just as in the case of Galaise’s legal action, it will not be without financial cost for the MSO.
At this point, one question to be asked – and it’s a question that could apply to any arts organisation involved in legal action of this kind – is about the financial costs associated with these activities and whether or not they will impact the company’s artistic programming and, if so, how?
Another point that springs to mind is how obvious it is that the arts sector is part of a highly litigious wider business environment where lawyers seem to be on-call around the clock, and where the pursuit of compensation abounds for perceived workplace or work-related wrongs.
Of course, there are very good reasons why our laws exist as they do – they are essential to ensuring our rights (whether at work or elsewhere) to safe and fair environments.
But perhaps the most complicated thought to arise from this situation, is about how much this kind of legal action is costing Australian artists and arts audiences when so many resources are required by arts companies to ready themselves for these battles?
Most Australian arts companies are far from being awash with the funds needed to come away from these legal processes unaffected. But then, what choice other than legal action do artists, arts workers and/ or arts companies have when there have allegedly been serious and unlawful errors made and harm has been done?
This is therefore yet another thorny issue for the sector to confront right now, and is perhaps more evidence of the great need for strong arts boards comprising dedicated members who can draw on their high-level arts business (and legal) expertise to help sustain the sector at large.
