Can You Discipline Staff for What They Do After Hours? The Sydney Swans Just Answered That

Five AFL stars stood down for the rest of the season. No court date, no charges, no finding of guilt. Just a club willing to act on its own standards while a police investigation runs in the background. That’s not a football story. That’s an HR story, and every business owner in Australia should be paying attention.

What actually happened at the Pullman Hotel?

After the Sydney Swans beat Essendon on Sunday night, the team stayed at the Pullman Hotel in Melbourne. In the early hours of Monday morning, an incident occurred that is now the subject of a Victoria Police Sex Crimes Squad investigation. Reports indicate the alleged victim has spoken to police, that detectives are travelling from Victoria to New South Wales to continue their inquiries, and that no arrests or charges have been made.

On Tuesday night, the Swans board met and made a call. Isaac Heeney, Nick Blakey, Chad Warner, Riley Bice and James Jordon, five of the club’s most high-profile players, were suspended for the remainder of the 2026 season. Chairman Andrew Pridham and chief executive Matthew Pavlich fronted media to explain the decision, describing it as a willingness to torpedo their own season to uphold the club’s standards.

Here’s the part that matters for HR. The club was explicit that the sanction was not a finding on the criminal allegation. It related to the players’ decision to keep drinking late into the night and bring women back to the team hotel, a clear breach of club rules and expected conduct. The AFL separately confirmed the players would not be considered for the 2026 All Australian squad, stating plainly that this was independent of the police investigation.

Can Australian employers actually discipline staff for out-of-hours conduct?

Yes, and this case is a clean example of how to do it properly. The starting point in Australian employment law is that what staff do in their own time is generally their own business. But that changes the moment conduct connects back to work. If it happens at a work event, in work accommodation, involving colleagues, or if it damages the business’s reputation or breaches a clear policy, an employer has every right to act.

The Swans hotel stay was a direct extension of a work trip. The players were there because of their jobs, staying in accommodation the club paid for, immediately after a game they’d just played. That’s about as close to “on the clock” as out-of-hours conduct gets, and it’s exactly why the club had standing to act.

Why the Swans got the risk split right

This is the smartest part of the club’s handling of it, and it’s the bit most SMEs get wrong when something like this lands on their desk. There are two separate things going on here, and the Swans kept them separate:

• The unresolved allegation: a specific claim now under police investigation. No charges, no findings, no admissions. The club has made no comment on guilt and shouldn’t.
• The established breach: the players themselves have confirmed, in their own words, that they kept drinking late and brought people back to the hotel. That’s a breach of standards the club doesn’t need police or a court to confirm. It happened, it’s admitted, and it’s actionable now.

By sanctioning the admitted breach and leaving the disputed allegation to police, the Swans avoided the trap plenty of employers fall into: either doing nothing until a criminal process concludes (leaving staff, clients and reputation exposed for months), or jumping straight to punishing someone for something that hasn’t been established, which is a fast track to an unfair dismissal claim or a defamation problem of your own.

What should your business actually do with this?

Most SMEs don’t have AFL-level scrutiny, but the same situation plays out constantly: the Friday client dinner that runs late, the conference hotel, the work Christmas party. If you don’t have clear expectations set before conduct like this happens, you’re negotiating the rules after the fact, which is a much weaker position. Practical steps:

• Put out-of-hours conduct at work-related events in writing. Your code of conduct should say plainly that standards apply at conferences, work trips, client functions and team celebrations, not just in the office.
• Separate the disciplinary strands early. If there’s a serious allegation alongside a lesser, confirmed issue, deal with the confirmed issue on its own facts. Don’t let an unresolved allegation freeze every response.
• Get statements while memories are fresh, but don’t publish conclusions on anything still under investigation. Internal action and public commentary are two different risk profiles.
• If alcohol is part of your work culture (site celebrations, client entertaining, EOFY functions), have a genuine policy on it, not a poster nobody’s read.
• Move fast on what you can prove. Delay looks like indecision, and indecision looks like tolerance.

Frequently asked questions

Can we discipline an employee for something that happened outside work hours?

Yes, where there’s a clear connection to work: a work event, work accommodation, colleagues involved, or genuine reputational damage to the business. The further the conduct sits from work, the harder that connection is to establish, so document the link clearly.

Do we have to wait for a police investigation or court outcome before we act?

No. You can and often should act on conduct that’s independently established, such as an admitted policy breach, without waiting for a separate criminal process to conclude. Just don’t treat an unresolved allegation as if it’s already been proven.

What’s the risk if we act too early on an unproven allegation?

Potential unfair dismissal exposure if the sanction can’t be justified on the facts you actually have, plus defamation risk if you communicate findings that haven’t been established. Sanction what’s confirmed, and keep commentary on the disputed part to a minimum.

Does our code of conduct need to specifically mention off-site events?

Yes. If your policy only reads as applying “in the workplace”, you’ve left a gap. Extend it explicitly to conferences, work travel, client functions and team celebrations so there’s no argument about scope later.

What if the media or public are already talking about it?

External noise doesn’t change your legal test. Base any action on the facts and policy breaches you can support, run a fair process, and resist the pressure to move faster or slower because of public attention.

Sources

ABC News, “Sydney Swans ban Isaac Heeney, Nick Blakey, Chad Warner, Riley Bice and James Jordon for remainder of 2026 season”, 19 August 2026.

ABC News, “‘We are deeply sorry’: Swans players break silence over alleged incident”, 19 August 2026.