The concert pianist at the centre of a high-profile unfair dismissal case has revealed his deep disappointment with his courtroom defeat.
Judge Graeme Hill on Friday threw out Jayson Lloyd Gillham's case against the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, finding he was not unfairly dismissed.
The case centred on Gillham's termination in August 2024 after he told a recital audience Israel had deliberately targeted some journalists to prevent the reporting of war crimes.
Gillham claimed he was sacked because of his political beliefs but Judge Hill determined that was not the case; rather the orchestra was protecting its business interests and reputation.
The pianist delivered his reaction via social media on Saturday morning, stating he had been overwhelmed by messages since the loss.
"I am understandably very disappointed by the court’s decision in this matter. I believe artists should be free to speak with integrity. This case was never just about me. My principles remain unchanged," Gillham posted on Instagram.
"I will take some time to consider the court’s findings. In the meantime, my focus is on music."
Giuseppe Carabetta, an associate professor of workplace and business law at the University of Technology Sydney, said the court had affirmed an employer's right to sack outspoken workers if done to protect organisational reputation or business interests.
"The key lesson from the Gillham decision is Australian employers are not being given a licence to punish workers for their political opinions," he told AAP.
"But what the court has reinforced is organisations may regulate the use of their platforms, stages, brands and reputations."
Judge Hill noted the orchestra had a policy of not supporting either side of the Gaza conflict and there was a custom of performers not making statements about sensitive political issues.
That finding also supported employers who wanted to avoid taking a stance on highly contentious issues, Dr Carabetta said.
"The judgment gives some comfort to organisations seeking to maintain political neutrality, provided they can demonstrate that their actions are genuinely directed to institutional interests rather than suppressing a particular viewpoint," he said.
The judge also supported the orchestra's contention it controlled the stage, rather than the performer, Dr Carabetta said.
"The court seems to accept that performers do not automatically acquire a right to use an employer's or host's platform to make political statements on matters unrelated to the engagement," he said.
Orchestra chair Edgar Myer welcomed the findings and hoped the organisation could now focus on music.
The question of costs will be decided at a later date.
