You know, the guy caught on camera allegedly weeing into his mouth. Well, he’s re-emerged and is apparently threatening to sue the Cronulla Sharks for unfair dismissal.

In case you were living under a rock at the time, the Sharks acted swiftly when the images emerged and sacked Todd. Not only did he lose his gig with the Sharks, but it ended his playing career in Australia.

At the time, the Sharks’ bosses indicated they’d had enough of his very public, private mischief. Even though this incident, and the earlier publicised ones, occurred on his own time, the Club apparently formed the view that he was bringing the game into disrepute. 

So now, more than a year later, we’re informed by various media outlets that he’s suing the Club for “unfair dismissal”. He’s on record saying he heard about his sacking from a team mate, and thinks he was “harshly done by” and he “wanted it to be cleaned up”. 

Make your own decision about what the “it” is, but as you pundits out there would know, there is a 21 day time limit applying to unfair dismissal claims. It’s difficult to see that Todd would get the discretion exercised in his favour to extend, even if he is eligible to access the jurisdiction. 

His lawyer seems to be suggesting that the nub of the claim is in fact that Todd wasn’t afforded “due process”. Given we’re guilty of getting our info from social media, the legal foundation of that claim is not entirely clear. 

But the take home message is this: there’s much to be said for affording procedural fairness. You know, giving the “accused” an opportunity to respond before proceeding to terminate. If someone is eligible to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, it’s essential. Even if they’re not, contracts, workplace policies and enterprise agreements do have the potential to trip up an employer that doesn’t follow any documented process. 

And wouldn’t you love to hear Todd’s explanation anyway?