Aussie Pro Rugby
-
Wow so many layers to this one. All of it really a storm in a teacup truth be known. Nonsense talk in a fragile world.
I guess the employment contract holds sway
If Izzy is ok with the termination then it's no different to us leaving a job. Each to their own
On a side note if anyone is offended by Izzy's articulation of his make believe friend's expectations then you're of no use to our species and have a retarded view of the physical world
If you're offended on behalf of someone else you haven't met, then you need counselling for your nihilismIn my opinion
-
@Siam from what I heard on the radio on the way home today, Israel is not happy with his impending termination and will fight it, also apparently does not regret his post
-
@taniwharugby ahh cool. Bit dim then really.
Of most relevance in this story is that the Aussies just lost half their try scoring options. 😀
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
-
Folau stood down by NSW Rugby, still faces axe after meeting with Rugby AU
After more than 24 hours of attempting to contact Folau, Rugby Australia and NSW Rugby met with the 30-year-old at the Rugby Australia offices on Friday and remained unmoved in their determination to terminate his four-year, multi-million dollar contract. Initially, no suspension had been imposed on Folau but NSW Rugby released a statement on Friday night confirming it would stand the fullback down. The Waratahs are on a bye this week but will reconvene early next week ahead of their round 10 clash against the Rebels at the SCG.Friday's meeting came after Folau was seen with Rugby Union Players' Association (RUPA) CEO Prataal Raj in Sydney's south-east earlier in the day. RUPA representatives were also with Folau at the meeting on Friday. "Rugby Australia and the NSW Rugby Union have met with Israel Folau in Sydney today," a Rugby Australia statement said. "As the meeting was held in confidence between the player and his employers, Rugby Australia and the NSW Rugby Union will not comment on the discussions at the meeting. "Following today’s meeting the two organisations will update their respective boards on the matter to consider next steps. "Our joint position regarding Israel Folau is unchanged."A statement from RUPA indicated that Folau intends to fight to save his career in Australian rugby and that any dismissal would need to occur under the Code of Conducts as opposed to any other grounds for termination. In cases of a Code of Conduct, the player in question would have to face a three-person independent disciplinary tribunal, like that which was established in 2014 to address Kurtley Beale's breach. "It is important to note that Israel remains contracted to both Rugby Australia and the NSW Waratahs at this time, and as such has signalled his intention to continue to honour his contract," the RUPA statement read. "It is RUPA’s position that any disciplinary action must be dealt with in accordance with the Rugby AU Professional Player Code of Conduct. RUPA will work alongside Israel and his representatives, the NSW Rugby Union and Rugby Australia to ensure that this process is followed. "RUPA will continue to offer our support to Israel as required. "The views expressed by Israel are his alone and are not endorsed by RUPA."Rugby Australia has not made public their specific grounds for termination and it is unclear how long the process would take regardless of the grounds. (...) -
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
-
This post is deleted!
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
Did any of them have the financial means and incentive to contest them?
-
A nice bit of background on him from back in the days of good journalism on stuff.
This part in particular was interesting for perspective
In a footballing milieu where bad behaviour is commonplace, Folau remains resolutely uncontroversial. He is as shy as a child, sincere, uncomplicated and deeply religious: he doesn't drink, smoke or swear, and he doesn't have a girlfriend. He is the anti-matter equivalent of NRL bad boy Todd Carney, who was sacked last season after being photographed urinating in his own mouth, following a string of other offences.
-
Billy, for God's sakes just shut up.
-
@Catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Billy, for God's sakes just shut up.
No keep talking mate , its rwc year .
Has Itoje said anything yet ?
-
@jegga said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Billy, for God's sakes just shut up.
No keep talking mate , its rwc year .
Has Itoje said anything yet ?
What with you and then @MiketheSnow ”liking” a post about Eddie fucking us up at scrum half, I’m beginning to think you guys are getting wary about England again. That’s quite comforting. Thank you.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
The 'how' is not the point, the point was they breached the agreed upon code of conduct. Religion shouldn't be used as a get out of jail free card when a code of conduct or contract is breached.
@rotated said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
Did any of them have the financial means and incentive to contest them?
You don't really need financial means to contest unfair dismissal in Oz and I'd assume a payout would be incentive enough for anyone.
-
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Religion shouldn't be used as a get out of jail free card when a code of conduct or contract is breached.
Not too sure it's as simple as that if Folau hasn't broken any law with his comments.
What if a code of conduct or contract prevents someone from expressing his or her religious beliefs? Aren't you discriminating on religious grounds or free speech grounds if you then punish the player for expressing his/her beliefs?
Or does the ARU (for example) refuse contracts to players with certain religious or political views?
-
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
The 'how' is not the point, the point was they breached the agreed upon code of conduct.
My point was it doesn't necessarily matter if both parties agreed to that code of conduct.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Religion shouldn't be used as a get out of jail free card when a code of conduct or contract is breached.
Not too sure it's as simple as that if Folau hasn't broken any law with his comments.
What if a code of conduct or contract prevents someone from expressing his or her religious beliefs? Aren't you discriminating on religious grounds or free speech grounds if you then punish the player for expressing his/her beliefs?
Or does the ARU (for example) refuse contracts to players with certain religious or political views?
For that he would have to prove that his religion espouses what he posted and that opens a huge can of worms what with translations/versions etc
-
The fact that RA and the Waratahs went ahead and made a public announcement of their intention to fire him without going through a Code of Conduct hearing could potentially leave the two rugby bodies legally exposed. Indeed, in their seven-paragraph statement RA chief executive Raelene Castle and her NSW counterpart Andrew Hore did not once mention a Code of Conduct hearing and it could be argued that he was being denied due process.
That’s one option. The second option — that RA inserted a social media clause in the $4 million four-year clause it signed with Folau last October that enabled it to sack him when he posted offensive material on Wednesday night — is fraught with even trickier obstacles.
Under the General Contracting section of the CBA, the only additional clauses that can be inserted into a standard player contract are those that are beneficial or potentially beneficial to the player. Certainly any clause that permitted Rugby Australia to sack Folau if he posted comments on social media that were deemed to be divisive or discriminatory would hardly be viewed as being “beneficial”.
