The Wiggles caught up in ugly courtroom battle

2 hours ago 1

Children’s entertainment group The Wiggles is defending an explosive lawsuit filed against it by the company’s former chief executive, who claims he was sacked after complaining about spending and hiring decisions by one of the group’s founding members.

Luke O’Neill, the first chief executive of The Wiggles, is suing the company and one of the group’s founders, “Blue Wiggle” Anthony Field, after his employment was terminated in May.

Lucia and Anthony Field, the Blue Wiggles, in the Big Red Car.

The Federal Court feud has exposed the breakdown in the relationship between O’Neill and Field, the sole remaining member of the Wiggles’ original lineup and a director of The Wiggles Holdings Pty Limited. O’Neill claims he complained about Field making financial decisions benefiting family members.

In a written defence filed on Thursday and released by the court on Friday, the company said vast tracts of O’Neill’s claim were liable to be struck out.

Field ‘undermined CEO’

O’Neill claims in court documents that he was “undermined” by Field in a meeting this year in front of more than a dozen staff and “excluded” from a key meeting with Kmart over toy sales after he made complaints to or about Field.

He was subsequently sacked as chief executive on May 28 this year. He was appointed in January last year and an employment contract was executed in March.

The former CEO says his key duties included reviewing financial data, including costs and operations.

The company said in its written defence that O’Neill was aware of the Kmart meeting and said he did not need to attend.

As to the claim he was undermined at a meeting, the company said O’Neill was “advised” by Field that he was “too involved in the creative development process” in light of the “commercial nature of his role”, that he was not consulting Field in his capacity as creative director of the company about creative decisions, and that Field “wanted to explore alternative models for the sale of ... merchandise online”.

Compensation sought

O’Neill is seeking payment of a bonus he claims he is owed, in addition to compensation and penalties for alleged contraventions of legal protections including provisions in the Fair Work Act.

O’Neill claims the company “failed to provide any warning” before his employment was terminated, and there was “no reasonable basis” for him to be sacked.

The company said in its written defence that O’Neill was sacked because his “overall performance was not satisfactory”, necessary trust in him was lost, and he “failed to appreciate that the creative decisions remained with the shareholders” of the company.

‘Special bonus plan’

O’Neill claims the company and Field contravened the Fair Work Act by taking adverse action against him for exercising a workplace right in making complaints, including by questioning Field’s alleged “determination” to implement a “special bonus plan” for his friend as well as for his daughter Lucia’s boyfriend. Lucia is also a member of the Wiggles.

O’Neill alleges the adverse action included reducing his duties – the claimed exclusion from the Kmart meeting was one example cited – and terminating his employment.

The company said in its written defence that Field had proposed a bonus plan for the group’s merchandise team and that O’Neill was requested to develop that plan. Ultimately, the company said, no such plan was finalised or approved.

Among the other complaints O’Neill says he made to Field and the Wiggles’ head of production before he was sacked was the “unnecessary costs of hiring” a specific performer for the group’s Canberra shows.

The company said in its written defence that the cost of engaging the performer for the shows in Canberra “was a genuine business decision … and was not a material cost”, citing casual wages of $836.25.

O’Neill alleges he also complained that Field hired his nephew Seamus Field to work on the “Tree of Wisdom” project and approved air travel costs for a friend of his daughter Lucia.

The company denied this, and said that “any associated costs were genuine business decisions for [the company’s] ‘Tree of Wisdom’ project involving the engagement of qualified and experienced individuals and … the associated costs were not material”.

Fight over bonus

O’Neill alleges representatives of the company made misleading representations to him about his bonus before he was hired as CEO, and the sum he was paid in July this year, $86,266, fell short of the amount he is owed.

The company denied this and said it was not required to pay O’Neill “any bonus either whilst an employee … or on the termination” of his employment.

In orders this month, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee directed the parties to attend mediation, which will be held in Sydney on September 24. If those talks do not produce a settlement, the dispute returns to court in February to set a trial date.