Man Who Forfeited $133,000 NSW Government Contract For Fighting Office Pride Flag Loses Compensation Case

A man has unsuccessfully sought compensation after losing a $133,000 NSW Government contract, claiming he was passed over for the role for repeatedly complaining about a workplace pride flag. 

In his now-dismissed case, Darren Cook alleged the pride flag constituted a “club flag” representing a lifestyle or group that he did not belong to, despite standing in the foyer of the building alongside a National, State, First Nations, and Torres Straight Island flag. 

While Cook contended his protests against the flag constituted a public or political activity, an action that would have been protected under section 210(1)(h) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, this was found to be spurious. 

Instead, it was found his real concern was that people might infer he is gay.

Cook’s Numerous Pride Flag Complaints Came Before New Job Was Finalised

Darren Cook had been providing contract consulting services to the NSW Government’s Heritage Stoneworks department for six months when he applied for a full-time Delivery Manager role in April of 2024.

When Mr Cortis, the Director of Heritage Stoneworks, informed Cook his application was unsuccessful, Cook was instead offered two options: continue operating as a contingent contractor, albeit with an increased rate; or be instigated into a temporary Grade 9/10 temporary position worth $133,183 plus Super. 

“I think your experience is invaluable to the team,” wrote Cortis, “and I want to offer 2 options available that may suit your requirements. I am happy to instigate either of both options ASAP if agreeable.”

Cook opted for the second option by email that same day.

It was in the following months while this process was being instigated that Cook first complained about the pride flag. This included a report made to his supervisor, Mr Parry, in early June, as well as several more complaints made to both Mr Parry and Mr Cortis in the following months.

Then, in mid-August, Cook was informed the job offer had been withdrawn, prompting him to seek damages for lost income.

The Verdict In Cook v Secretary, Department of Planning, Housing & Infrastructure 

Cook’s case was ultimately dismissed, The Industrial Relations Commission ruling that Cook had not in fact been seeking to advance a broader public cause.

When Commissioner Daniel O’Sullivan asked whether Cook was concerned people would think he was gay, he answered, “Yes”, leading to the commissioner’s following statement:

“This evidence does not express any issue beyond the Applicant’s concern regarding his own self-interest,” said O’Sullivan. “Further, his expressed motivation focused on how the display of the pride flag reflected upon him and how others might perceive him.

“Accordingly, while the Applicant characterised his complaint as public or political activity, his own evidence does not support this conclusion. Instead, it supports that his real motivation for raising the concern was a personal objection to being associated with the pride flag and to the possibility that others might think he was gay.”