Gillham v Melbourne Symphony Orchestra Pty Ltd (Liability)
Citation: [2026] FCA 891
What happened
the Applicant, a concert pianist, commenced legal action against the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO) and the Respondent, the MSO's Chief Operating Officer. This followed the Applicant making statements about Israel committing war crimes during a piano recital in August 2024. The MSO subsequently cancelled his upcoming performance, sent a message to attendees explaining the cancellation, attempted to reinstate him with conditions regarding onstage statements, and published a statement about the cancelled concert. the Applicant alleges these actions constituted adverse action under the Fair Work Act.
What was decided
The Federal Court dismissed the Applicant’s application. The court found that the MSO's actions did not constitute adverse action contrary to the Fair Work Act. The case involved complex issues related to freedom of expression and workplace rights, but the court determined it was not its role to address broader political controversies surrounding the Israel-Gaza conflict.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that expressing a view on sensitive topics can lead to legal challenges. While employers have the right to manage their operations and set expectations for employees, they must ensure actions are not discriminatory or taken as adverse action based on protected attributes like political beliefs. Clear communication of workplace expectations is crucial.
What it means for employees
Employees have rights regarding freedom from discrimination in expressing political views at work. However, the scope of those rights and how they apply to specific situations can be complex. Employees considering making public statements should understand potential consequences and seek legal advice if concerned about employer reactions.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca0891Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →